9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s imported against the Value Based Advance Licence (VBAL.) dated 6th April 1984. 2. The Petitioner obtained the above VBAL. for the CIF value of Rs. 4 lakhs (US $ 12,500) for import of 5.1 kg of Riboflavine with a condition to export 10 lakh 5 mg Riboflavine Tablets for a FOB value of Rs. 8 lakhs (US $ 25,000) within 12 months from the date of issue of licence. 3. The Customs Authorities reported that the Petitioner had imported 240 kg of raw material @ US $ 52 per kg whereas in terms of the application, raw material, i.e., Riboflavine was to be imported @ US $ 2450.98 per kg. The petitioner was shown to have imported the raw material by a Bill of Entry dated 9th December 1994 @ US $ 52 per kg. On this basis, it was inferred that the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme was drawn up between ADGFT and the Petitioner on 7th June 1994. By a letter dated 5th August 1994, the ADGFT accepted the LUT for a value of Rs. 3,90,000/-. A bill of entry was filed thereafter on 9th December 2004 for a total invoice value of US $ 12,480/-. A copy of the said bill of entry has been enclosed. An invoice dated 20th March 1994 for the finished goods exported from Bombay to Dubai for a total FOB of US $ 25,000 have also been enclosed. The Bank of Madura Ltd., New Delhi gave a certificate of export realization dated 21st April 1994 and that was furnished to the DGFT as proof of fulfilment of the export obligation. 6. Nearly two years thereafter on 2nd February, 1996 a show cause notice was issued alleging non-fulfilment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 [hereinafter "FT (D&R) Act"]. Thereafter the Petitioner received an ex parte order dated 9th October 2002 passed by the Joint DGFT imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 crores. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the ADGFT which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 15th December 2005. 9. First, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 9th October 2002 was violative of the principles of natural justice. Despite the Petitioner requesting for adjournment of the hearing, the Respondents had proceeded to pass an experte order. Further the show cause notice asking the Petitioner to appear before him, had been issued by the Joint DGFT. However, the Order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April 1994 with the condition that it could import 5.1 kg Riboflavine. The further condition was that it would export 10 lakh 5 mg Riboflavine Tablets for a FOB value of Rs. 8 lakhs (US $ 25,000) within 12 months from the date of the issuance of licence. After the Petitioner pointed out by its letter dated 8th June 1994 that the quantity mentioned of the item of import did not appear to be correct, since Riboflavin was not a sensitive item, the office of the DGFT corrected the VBAL. Enclosed with the writ petition is the copy of VBAL which has been issued where column 3 reads "Description of goods ..........Riboflavine 5.1 kgs .....quantity restriction is deleted". There is a rubber stamp on the said entry with the date of "8/94". The above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it appears that only the DEEC book was awaited from the Customs Authorities as it was not available with the Petitioner. It is pointed out by the Petitioner in para 10 of the writ petition : "That vide invoice No. EX/3/93-94 dated 20-3-1994 and vide Shipping Bill No. 423488 dated 28-3-1994 the finished goods manufactured from the material imported i.e. Riboflavine tablets were exported from Bombay to M/s. Servotech International, Dubai for a total FOB of US $ 25,000/- (Rs. 7,81,750/-)." 13. Consequently, this Court accepts the contention of the Petitioner that it complied with the precise condition of the VBAL, viz., it had to export riboflavine tablets worth US $ 25000 within six months. 14. The only contention that remains is the alle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not choose to do either. 15. In the circumstances, the procedure adopted by the ADGFT does not appear to be reasonable. 16. It is stated in Ground (V) of the writ petition that its financial condition was not good; its factories have been attached by the Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation; the Central Bank of India filed a case against it in the Debts Recovery Tribunal; it incurred a loss of Rs. 75 lakhs as per the balance sheet for the year 2001-02. In the above circumstances, understandably the Petitioner could not produce any of the documents. 17. The Respondents have also not furnished a satisfactory explanation why the Petitioner was not granted an adjournment of the hearing. The impugned order dated 9th October 2002 passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
