9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g M/s. Devi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., 11/1, Purushottapuram, Near Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam, as supporting manufacturer. The condition sheet attached to the licence specified that the importer shall utilize the ex empted goods imported under the licence in, accordance with the provisions of the EXIM Policy and the concerned Customs Notification No. 51/2000 dated 27-4-2000 as amended. Other conditions specified in the licence include the submission of export obligation fulfillment certificate and non-transferability of the goods imported under the licence. As specified in Para (ii) of the Customs Notification No. 51/2000, the importer submitted a bond undertaking to pay, on demand and amount equal to the duty leviable, but for the exemption, on the imported materials in respect of which the conditions specified in the Notification have not been complied with, together with the applicable rate of interest from the dale of clearance of the said materials. The importer also submitted a Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs.2,00,000 being the duty- foregone amount on the quantity intended to be imported. The licence was duly registered in Visakhapatnam Customs House. (ii) Against this advance l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Notification No.51/2000; (ii) Interest Under Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962; (iii) confiscation of the Goods under various provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act; and (iv) Imposition of penalty under Sections 112 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962. (iv) The appellant contested the show cause notice on various grounds, mainly on the ground that they have not completed the export obligation due to stiff competition. It was the submission that they have imported only 3.5 MT of sea material and not 10 432 MT as alleged. It was the submission that the total quantity, both imported as well as locally procured was finally exported by M/s. Satya Sea Foods, a sister concern of the M/s Devi Sea Foods, the supporting manufacturer which in turn, the export obligation has been made; and that the confiscation is not sustainable in view of the absence of evidence on record. The Adjudicating authority after considering the submissions made by the appellants came to the conclusion that the appellants have not produced any evidence and that they have complied with the conditions of Notification No. 51/2000, as regards the export obligation he held against the appellant and passed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the sales realization figures had been properly accounted for and reflected in the books of accounts. It was also the submission that the appellants had not complied with the export obligation, but there was no intention to misuse the provisions of DEEC licence. It is the submission that once duty foregone is realized by encashment of Bank Guarantee, the question of default does not arise. 4. The learned SDR submitted that the entire issue is totally misrepresented before the Tribunal. It is the submission that the appellants have not given any evidence regarding local purchase of the goods. It is the submission that the "weighment register" obtained from the supporting manufacturer indicated the receipt of 10.932 MTs of shrimps in their premises and payment being made on the appellants. It is the submission that if said shrimps are procured from local sellers, they ought to have produced the evidence with regard to such purchase. There is absolute violation of provisions of Notification No. 51/2000. Hence the differential duty confirmed by the Adjudicating authority is correct. 5. We have considered the submissions made, at length, by both the sides and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... value of the goods purchased which could be tallied to the total quantity and value of the sea material obtained from the Trawler Shiva-1, ledger accounts of M/s. Satya Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. etc. evidencing the payment of Rs.26,34,137/- for 10,932.40 Kg of sea material from M/s. Prapath Enterprises. Another important evidence is the payment details made to one Sri Chintapili Raju, a labour contractor for unloading 11 MT sea material, for unloading of the cargo @ Rs. 500 PMT was for 11 tons of the material and not for 3.5 MT of the material, which they claim. It may be noted that this amount was paid for unloading of the material and not for handling or transport of the material from jetty to factory premises. The departmental allegation is thus backed by a number of evidences whereas the importer failed to produce any further/substantial evidence to stand by their deck ration that only 3.5 MT was imported in the vessel. 10. Taking into consideration of the size of the vessel, the Trawler MFV Shiva-1 is capable of having 25 to 30 MT fish hold capacity. It is clear that there could have been no opportunity/possibility for Myanmar Customs to check the weighment of fish catch declared b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
