TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods to the extent of 4 times the value of the imports within a period of 5 years. It was after furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs. 19,28,193/- to the licensing authority (DGFT) and executing LUT bond with the Customs department that they secured the duty-free clearance of the goods. The appellants, however, could not fulfil their export obligation within the stipulated period of 5 years. They approached the DGFT for extension of time to fulfil the export obligation. While this application was pending with the licensing authority, SIIB of the department, in December 1999, launched investigations to find out as to whether the appellants had fulfiled their export obligation under the EPCG scheme. The investigators found that the appellants wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithdrawn. In a letter dated 2-5-2006, the DGFT informed the appellants as follows :- You are free from the Bank Guarantee/indemnity-cum-Guarantee Bond No. 93/34 dated 17-6-1993 for Rs. 19,28,193/- issued by the State Bank of India, Labbipeta, Vijayawada, Hyderabad. You are also free from all liabilities undertaken by you by virtue of execution of Bank Guarantee/indemnity-cum-Guarantee Bond dated 17-6-1993. 3. On the strength of the DGFT s letter, the appellants approached the Assistant Commissioner (EPCG) for cancellation of their bond, which was done and this fact was intimated to the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds). The appellants then claimed refund of Rs. 20.00 lakhs which was deposited in 1999. The Assistant Commissioner (Refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to whether the party was liable to pay any amount of duty on the imported goods on the ground that they did not fulfil their export obligation under the EPCG licence thereby violating a condition of the exemption notification. After obtaining favourable decision from the DGFT, the party informed the Assistant Commissioner (EPCG) that they had since fulfilled their export obligation. On this basis, they contested the demand of duty etc. The Assistant Commissioner (EPCG) ought to have considered their submissions and any evidence produced in support thereof, and to have passed final order in adjudication of the above show-cause notice. As rightly observed by the lower appellate authority, any claim for refund of duty must arise out of a dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. As the original authority rejected the claim as time-barred and the appellate authority did not examine this issue, we have no option but to set aside both the orders. Accordingly, after setting aside the orders of the lower authorities, we direct the Assistant Commissioner (EPCG) to pass final speaking order in adjudication of the relevant show-cause notice within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and also direct the Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) to dispose of the subject refund claim, without invoking Section 27 of the Customs Act, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner (EPCG). It goes without saying that both the authorities shall give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
