9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (11) TMI 234 - AT - CustomsImports Stainless Steel Coils (SS Coils) - DEEC Scheme - Duty free goods - Validity of the JDGFT s order in relation to the Customs authorities findings - Violation of conditions of Customs Notifications No. 30/97 and No. 48/99 - Misuse of Advance Licences under the DEEC scheme - HELD THAT - Admittedly enough quantity of SS utensils was exported by the appellants in discharge of export obligation under the advance licences in question and all such exports were logged in DEEC book. Such discharge of export obligation has been certified by the licensing authority itself. It was at the DRI s instance that the JDGFT initiated proceedings for cancelling the licences and penalizing the party. Such proceedings culminated in a quasi-judicial order and this order of the JDGFT categorically held that export obligation had been discharged in terms of all the licences. A similar order of the JDGFT was there in the case of Nayjyothi International 2004 (9) TMI 178 - CESTAT CHENNAI . We think we need not make any further observation in the instant case. Following the above view expressed by us in Final Order No. 806/2004 we hold that the charge of breach of conditions of the Customs Notifications does not survive against the appellants in the wake of the JDGFT s order dated 5-1-2004 which by now is final and binding on the Customs authorities. The Department s allegation was that the appellants had no manufacturing facility of their own at the premises declared to the DGFT and as they had not declared any jobbing unit to the said authority it should be presumed that the entire raw material imported by them was diverted to the domestic market and the utensils exported by them were bought-out goods. This very allegation was placed before the DGFT by the DRI and the same was rejected in the JDGFT s order. Moreover as convincingly argued by the Consultant the DRI could gather no evidence of anybody in the domestic market having purchased the raw material from the appellants or of anybody in the market having sold SS utensils to the appellants during the material period. In our view the JDGFT s order upon attaining finality has rendered the Department s allegations baseless. The party fulfilled all the substantive conditions under the DEEC scheme. Hence there is no reason to deny the benefit of the Notifications to them nor to take any penal action against them In the result the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of conditions of Customs Notifications No. 30/97 and No. 48/99. 2. Misuse of Advance Licences under the DEEC scheme. 3. Validity of the JDGFT's order in relation to the Customs authorities' findings. Summary: 1. Violation of Conditions of Customs Notifications No. 30/97 and No. 48/99: The appellants imported Stainless Steel Coils (SS Coils) duty-free under Advance Licences issued by the DGFT under the DEEC scheme, clearing the goods under Customs Notifications No. 30/97 and No. 48/99. The department, through DRI, investigated and found that the appellants did not have a factory at the declared address and had diverted the imported raw material to the domestic market, violating the conditions of the Customs Notifications and EXIM Policy 1997-2002. Consequently, a show-cause notice was issued demanding duty of Rs. 73,38,846/- on 154.523 MTs of SS Coils, proposing confiscation and penalty. 2. Misuse of Advance Licences under the DEEC Scheme: The Commissioner of Customs adjudicated the show-cause notice, denying the benefit of the Customs Notifications for the entire import, demanding duty and interest, ordering confiscation of the SS Coils, and imposing a penalty. The appellants contended that they had utilized the imported raw material for manufacturing SS utensils either in their declared factory or in job workers' premises due to lack of electricity supply. They argued that the entire raw material was used for manufacturing export goods, and there was no evidence of domestic diversion. 3. Validity of the JDGFT's Order in Relation to the Customs Authorities' Findings: The JDGFT, acting on DRI's request, issued a show-cause notice to the appellants under Sections 13 & 14 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The JDGFT's order dated 5-1-2004 was in favor of the appellants, certifying full discharge of export obligation. The Commissioner of Customs, however, held that the Customs authorities were responsible for verifying compliance with the Customs Notifications and EXIM Policy, and the JDGFT had exceeded his jurisdiction. Judgment: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the appellants had duly fulfilled their export obligation, as certified by the licensing authority. The JDGFT's order, being a quasi-judicial order, had become final and binding on the department, as no appeal was preferred against it. The Tribunal held that the charge of breach of conditions of the Customs Notifications did not survive in view of the JDGFT's order. Consequently, the benefit of the Notifications could not be denied, and no penal action was warranted. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. Operative Part: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The operative part of the order was pronounced on 4-11-2004.
|
