TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant made import of Tetracycline, Riboflavin and Thiamine without payment of Customs duty under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. The obligation under the notification was that the goods imported are to be used for the manufacture of medicine which is to be exported. The show cause notice was issued to the appellants on the ground that the raw material imported by the appellant by availing the benefit of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. is disposed of in local market without fulfilment of export obligation. Hence, the appellant violated the conditions of the Notification No. 203/92-Cus. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that 11 Value-Based Advance Licences (VABAL) were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the appellant. His submission is that during the period of export plague broke in India and the export could not be affected due to ban on export of Tetracycline and due to refusal by the foreign buyers. He, therefore, submits that appeal be allowed. 6. Learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that appellant made import of the raw material without payment of duty under the cover of notification and one of the conditions of the notification was that the raw material cannot be sold in local market prior to fulfilment of export obligation. His submission is that appellant sold the raw material in the local market without fulfilling the export obligation. He further submits that Commissioner of Customs in the impugned o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... along with show cause notice. The appellant filed reply dated 4-2-1997 to the show cause notice consisting 34 pages and in his reply, the appellant had not asked for cross-examination of any witnesses nor at the time of personal hearing such request was made. Further, we find that appellant admitted the fact that imported raw material was sold in the local market prior to fulfilling the export obligation. In view of this admission, the denial of cross-examination has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. 11. As the appellant sold the duty free raw material in the local market and he has not produced any evidence to show that export obligation in respect of the raw material was fulfilled as per conditions of Notification No. 203/92-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
