9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... placement Certificate (DFRC) scheme. On examination of the consignments, it transpired that the description of the goods was mis-declared and that goods under import were 'cotton corduroy fabrics'. DFRC benefit was available to 'Textile pieces of goods dyed cotton processed fabrics'. Further investigation revealed that the importer did not actually function from the premises declared in the Bills of Entry and the address was given in order to obtain IE Code from DGFT and Sri Popatlal Mohanlal Jain, the Proprietor of VF collected tapal in his name received at the above address. During the course of investigation the appellants herein M/s. Changzhou Yongfa Corduroy Co, China sent a communication addressed to the Commissioner of Customs intima ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty on the importer. The impugned order demanded Rs. 15,76,061/- from VF towards duty due on excess quantity imported. A penalty of Rs. 2,35,23,718/- was imposed on the importer under Section 114 (A) of the Act equal to duty fraudulently evaded. The subject consignments were allowed to be released on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- which was ordered considering the liability to confiscation of similar goods cleared under six other Bills of Entry. Considering that the exporter did not receive consideration for the goods under import, the Commissioner warned the appellant exporter. 2. In the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the exporter, M/s. Changhzhou Yongfa Corduroy Co., China seeks direction allowing re-export of the subjec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mis-placed, as in that case, the importer had not turned up in spite of notice, respondent No. 1 had surfaced only after the show cause notice had been issued and there was suspicion that the importer and exporter were same or they had been acting in collusion. These facts were different from the facts of the case at hand. The show cause notice had not alleged collusion between the importer and the appellants. The show cause notice had alleged that the appellants had declared the description of the goods as 'dyed cotton processed fabrics' despite knowing the fact that the goods were 'cotton corduroy fabrics'. The appellants had explained that they were manufacturers of both 'dyed cotton fabrics' and 'cotton corduroy fabrics' and erroneousl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g with applicable interest. Rs. 2,35,23,718/- was imposed on VF under Section 114(A) of the Customs Act. The impugned order ordered fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- for import of 'cotton corduroy fabrics' in the guise of 'dyed cotton fabrics' and another fine of Rs. 4,50,000/- in relation to confiscation of excess undeclared quantity of 35,894.93 sq mtr. polyester fabrics imported earlier. The duty due of Rs. 15,76,061/- on the excess quantity has also been demanded. 4.1 There is no dispute that the impugned goods imported by M/s. Vimalachal Fashion under four Bills of Entry, all dated in 3-8-2007, were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act on account of mis-declaration of the description. The order of confiscation of the subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... claimed the right to take delivery of goods. The importer in Dugar's case participated in adjudication proceedings before the Customs Authorities and during the course of the proceedings the exporter appeared on its own and pleaded that the goods be not confiscated as title in the goods had not passed. In Dugar's case, there was a valid import licence while in the present case it is not so. There is forgery on the licence which rendered the licence invalid. Therefore, the import was without a licence. This was prohibited. In Dugar's case this court had held that none of the clauses of Section 111 of the Customs Act were attracted, the import being under a licence. The import was legal. In the present case, the import is without a valid lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er import are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act on account of mis-declaration . In view of the above judgment and the ratio as reflected in the paragraphs extracted above, the foreign exporter cannot be permitted to re-export the subject goods. In the case of Union of India v. Sampath Raj Dugar [1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.)], the goods imported were not liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The Court allowed re-export of the goods on equitable grounds as the goods were not taken delivery by the importer. In Al-Futtaim Engineering case (supra) relied on by the appellants, the Tribunal observed that the exporter therein had shipped the goods in the normal course of business but the importer could not clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
