9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 985X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Woven bags meant for export to foreign countries. The petitioner is one of the biggest exporters of such goods and it is recognised as a star export house, by the Director General of Foreign Trade, Bangalore. It has been further stated that Paragraph 3.10.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy confers certain privileges to the status holders like the petitioner, who are eligible for the following privileges : 3.10.4 states that a status Holder shall be eligible for privileges as under : (i) Authorization and Customs Clearances for both imports and exports on self-declaration basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices are being issued arbitrarily, jeopardising the operation of the exporters, contrary to the benefits conferred under the Foreign Trade Policy. 4. It has been further stated that the third respondent had issued a show cause notice, dated 13-12-2010, demanding from the petitioner an amount of Rs. 1,05,107/-. The petitioner had submitted a suitable reply. A personal hearing had also been conducted on 6-1-2011. However, no orders had been passed by the third respondent, till date, whileso, M/s. Big Bags India Private Limited had merged with the petitioner. A demand notice had been issued demanding an amount of customs duty to the tune of Rs. 2.42 lakhs. The petitioner has contested the demand, as it is time-barred. 5. It has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the impugned circular of the first respondent had amended, modified and abridged some of the privileges, causing grave prejudice to the petitioner and other similarly placed status holders. The impugned circular, which is contrary to paragraphs 3.10.4 of the Foreign Trade Policy, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Sandur Micro circuits Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belgaum - (2008) 14 SCC 336 = 2008 (229) E.L.T. 641 (S.C.), wherein the supreme Court had held that a circular cannot take away the effect of a notification, having the force of law. When the privileges had been granted to the petitioner by wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of executing such undertaking/bank guarantee. 12. It has been further stated that, while prescribing the norms, the bank guarantee exemption had been approved, subject to certain conditions, as mentioned in 3.2 of the Circular. One of the conditions stipulated is that the licence holder should not have been penalised, under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, The Central Excise Act, 1944, The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, or The Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, during the previous three financial years. The conditions prescribed are in tune with the provisions of the Hand Book of Procedures formulated under the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. As such, the conditions prescribed in the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned circular would not be infringing any of the provisions of law. Further, the impugned circular has not been issued contrary to the provisions of law, as alleged by the petitioner. As such the decision of the Supreme Court cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the present case. 15. It has been further stated that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on the ground of misdeclaration and suppression of facts for claiming additional duty exemption in the clearance of imported goods under the Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) Scheme. The petitioner has been issued with show cause notices and the matter had been adjudicated on 23-2-2011, vide Order-in-Original No. 14780 of 2011, imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.5 C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en enjoying certain privileges, as a status holder, as per the notification issued under the Foreign Trade Policy, such privileges had been granted subject to certain conditions prescribed in the Hand Book of Procedures. Further, it has been contended on behalf of the second and the third respondents that the petitioner had committed certain irregularities by misdeclaration and suppression of facts, while claiming additional duty exemption in the clearance of imported goods, under the Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) Scheme. 19. Even though the petitioner claims to have challenged the show cause notice, as well as the Order-in-Original No. 14780, dated 23-2-2011, and even if the petitioner had already paid the amounts claimed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
