TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etc.; that they imported capital goods under EPCG Scheme and obtained the benefit of Notification No. 160/92-Cus., dated 20-4-92; that they were under an obligation to export finished products equivalent to 4 times the CIF value of the goods imported within a period of 5 years from the date of issue of licence i.e. 2-4-1993; that they fulfilled the export obligation to the extent of 64% up to 1-4-98 and remaining obligation could not be fulfilled due to conditions in the international market. The learned Advocate, further, mentioned that the Appellants are having other manufacturing units in the name of M/s. Parasrampuria International and Parasfab International, both divisions of Parasrampuria Synthetic Ltd. which are 100% E.O.Us.; that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring to Para 41(i) of EXIM Policy, 1992-97 the Commissioner has overlooked the provisions of Paragraph 6.5 of Policy, 1997-2002 inasmuch as Para 6.5(i) states that the export of some goods by different manufacturing unit of the licence holder can be clubbed; that obviously capital goods imported under EPCG Scheme cannot be installed in one unit only and if a view is taken that the goods of the other units must also be manufactured by the machinery so imported, the provisions of Para 6.5 would become impractical and defeat the very purpose of relaxation given therein. He further, mentioned that they had applied to D.G.F.T. for extension of the period of export under their letter dated 30-7-98; that D.G.F.T. informed the Appellants under le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion were imported legally under import licence and these were used for manufacture of specified goods which were exported; that they had fulfilled the export obligation to the extent of more than 64% and the remaining export obligation cannot be fulfilled due to reasons beyond their control; that the bond had been executed by them only for the duty and not for goods; that the goods are not available for confiscation and as held by the Tribunal in the case of Ram Khazana Electronic v. C.C., Air Cargo, Jaipur, 2003 (156) E.L.T. 122 redemption fine cannot be imposed, if goods are not available for confiscation and no enforceable security is available with the department; that interest cannot be demanded from them as no import was made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants. The learned SDR, further, submitted that as per Para 6.5(ii), the exports shall be direct exports in the name of EPCG licence holder; that EPCG licence number is not mentioned on the Shipping Bills under which M/s. Parasrampuria International had exported the goods which is required for the purpose of verification; that accordingly the export made by Parasrampuria International cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of fulfilling the export obligation of the Appellants. Regarding the claim of the Appellants that the period has been extended by DGFT for fulfilling the export obligation, the learned SDR contended that regularization is not possible as they have not fulfilled the conditions. Regarding confiscation ordered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idered the submissions of both the sides. The facts which are not in dispute are that the Appellants after obtaining EPCG licence No. P/CG/2130385, dated 2-4-93 imported capital goods and obtained benefit of notification No. 160/92-Cus., dated 20-4-92. It is also not disputed that they have not fulfilled the export obligation i.e. exporting goods equivalent to four times of CIF of capital goods over a period of 5 years. The Appellants wants to club figure of export made by M/s. Parasrampuria International relying upon Para 6.5(i) of the Export Import Policy, 1997-2002 which the Revenue has not allowed. Para 6.5(i) of the Policy provides that the export obligation may also be fulfilled by the export of the same goods, for which EPCG licen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k guarantee valid up to 31-3-2003 covering the Customs duty in proportion to the unfulfilled export obligation together with 24% simple interest thereon from the date of import up to 31-9-2002 which should reach DGFT on or before 29-6-2001. Para 3 of the said letter further provides that such request should be accompanied by an export statement as per Appendix 10-C showing export obligation fulfilment up to 31-3-2001 duly certified by a Chartered Accountant and the concerned bank confirming the realization of Free Foreign Exchange. Nothing has been brought on record by the Appellants to show that these conditions mentioned in letter dated 11-6-2001 had been complied by them. In view of this we hold that as the Appellants have not fulfilled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
