TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs, Bangalore in his C. No. VIII/10/18/2002-Cus. Adjn., dated 11-3-2002. The applications were admitted by this Bench vide Admission Order No. 9/2002-Cus., dated 18-7-2002. 2. In short, the allegations in the SCN are that the main applicant, an 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of ready-made garments, had removed 66 Nos. of imported machines and 40 lamps totally valued at Rs. 1,06,47,870/-, and 200 Nos. of sewing machine lamps valued at Rs. 1,30,168/-, clandestinely to the other units belonging to the same group but situated in DTA without taking permission from the Asstt. Commissioner or the Dy. Commissioner of Customs and without payment of the customs duty leviable on the goods as per condition (5) of Notification 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ials, imported duty free by the 100% EOU. 3. At the time of final hearing on 27-9-2002, Shri B.V. Kumar, Advocate appeared for the main applicant and the eight co-applicants, while Shri K.M. Sarvotham, Supdt. of Customs appeared for the Respondent Commissioner. By way of praying for immunities, the learned Advocate vehemently urged that the capital goods and the raw materials imported into the 100% EOU were removed only to the other units belonging to the same group of companies situated in DTA under compelling situations in order to execute the export orders. He pointed out that even the SCN acknowledges the fact that the movement of these goods were duly kept posted in the movement register, though a private record, and these goods were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in the said report, the Respondent did not offer any comments in respect of submissions made in paras 21 and 23 in the settlement application and sought permission to tender the same. He went on to submit that the goods imported by the EOU have been utilized in the DTA for fulfilling the export orders of the DTA units as well, on which the DTA units have claimed drawback, in excess of the amount available to them in terms of CBEC Circular No. 31/2000-Cus., dated 20-4-2000, in respect of goods manufactured and exported by such DTA units. He concluded by saying that since the goods were imported and cleared availing the benefit of Customs Notification 53/97, immunity from interest can be given only if the conditions of the notifications ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of appropriate duty as well as interest on the same. They are also liable for imposition of penalty u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 in-asmuch as the clandestinely removed machineries are liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. The claim of clearance to their own DTA units by applicant is not faulted, but liability to duty alone is reiterated. Therefore, these comments would imply that the Revenue agrees with the claim of the main applicant. Therefore, in the absence of contra-evidence, it has to be held that all the goods removed from the 100% EOU were in fact, utilized for purposes of meeting the export orders. In fact, the applicant has also submitted statistics relating to value addition in exports during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Superintendent during final hearing, the quantum of drawback is not dependent on the machines on which the export goods are manufactured. 8. Similarly, the reliance of the Advocate on CBEC s Circular No. 31/96, dated 7-6-96 and corresponding Notfn. 67/95-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-11-95 is also not very appropriate for the issue on hand. Though the said Notfn. 67/95 exempts interest accrued on the customs duties payable at the time of clearance from warehouse on the specified (in the Notfn. 67/95) goods imported under by EOUs under certain Notfns. (again, specified in the Notfn. 67/95) and warehoused, Notfn. 53/97, under which the goods in the instant case had been imported, is not one of the specified Notfns. under Notfn. 67/95. 9. Be that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section (7) of Section 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 and in accordance with the following terms and conditions : (1) The total duty payable is settled at Rs. 29,32,103/- in terms of Section 127C(7) of the Customs Act, 1962. As seen from the SCN itself, the applicant has paid Rs. 28,79,165/- before the issue of SCN. The balance amount of Rs. 52,938/- has also been since paid vide TR 6 challan dated 24-7-2002. Accordingly, no further amount is due from the main applicant in this case. (2) The goods removed unauthorisedly in violation of the conditions of the notification are liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, this Bench grants immunity from payment of fine under Section 127H(1) of Customs Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
