TMI Blog2013 (9) TMI 285X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld be allowed – the Board had issued circular in 2010 which had further liberalized such conversions - the policy was designed to encourage the exports - in the facts and circumstances of the case a liberal view was called for. Period of limitation – Held that:- The application had to be considered on merits - In view of the Police report it cannot be said that there was five year delay in filing application – Decided in favor of assesse. - Appeal No. C/501 of 2011 - Final Order No. A/995/2012-WZB/AHD - Dated:- 21-6-2012 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran and Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Hardik Modh, Advocate, For the Respondent: Shri Rajendra Nagar, AR JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; During October 2003, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certificate and therefore have indulged in fraud/ mis-declaration/ manipulation. It was also observed in the order that Jt. DGFT s order shows that DFRC licenses were cancelled since endorsement was obtained by mis-leading and by submitting false Chartered Engineer certificate. (iii) The reliance of the appellant on the case of Midex Global Pvt. Limited -- 2010 (261) ELT 1041 (Tri. Mumbai) to support the contention that Section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 does not prescribe any time limit, was not accepted with the observation that in that case the time lapse was only slightly more than three years whereas in this case it is more than five years from the date of denial of DFRC scheme and seven years from the date of filing of shipping bills. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through the FIR, we find that the shipping bills, the subject matter of the dispute are indeed covered by the certificate produced before us. In fact there are two reports available on the file and the mistake has happened because of wrong report was referred to. Relying upon the statement made by the learned advocate and treating it as one made with responsibility, we accept the submission and therefore, take a view that this observation is not correct. Since the appellant could not file application for conversion without documents, it has to be held that application for conversion made in 2010, cannot be said to have been delayed. Therefore, the claim of the appellant that the application for conversion is not delayed on the basis of deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their claims of the technical characteristics. Their contention that similar view is being taken for other exporters is not sustainable since in cases where Customs is subsequently not able to confirm the technical characteristics endorsed on the basis of corroborative documents then such endorsement shall be withdrawn. The Hon'ble Court did direct the Customs to verify the DFRC. However, the issue of cancellation of DFRC was not covered in the Writ Petition and hence the Hon'ble Court direction is not being violated in the instant case of ab initio cancellation of DFRC as alleged by the noticee. 9. In view of the foregoing, I conclude that the act of the noticee is in violation of Rule 14 of the Foreign Trade Policy Rules 1993 calling fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that in the order portion of the order, the appellant was directed to approach Customs to give a technical characteristics on the shipping bills for issue of DFRC afresh, if the DFRC application was being rejected for fraud/ misleading information, liberty to approach Customs for endorsement would not have been given by the Jt. DGFT. Therefore, he concludes that it would not be appropriate to come to the conclusion that appellant had committed fraud/ mis-declaration or provided mis-leading information. In fact, the observation of learned Commissioner that findings of Jt. DGFT had attained finality and therefore there was manipulation is not correct since the very same Jt. DGFT has given liberty to the appellants to approach the depa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would have verified the description of the goods exported that the goods as mentioned in the shipping bill. In this case the goods have been exported by stuffing in the factory under Central Excise supervision and therefore, the description of the goods mentioned in the shipping bill has to be taken as one covering the goods which are exported. Since the description of goods exported in the shipping bills, in respect of which conversion is sought are exactly as mentioned in the DEPB schedule, we consider that this is a case where, in the interest of justice, the case of the appellant should have been considered sympathetically. 10. In view of the above, we find that the request of the appellant for conversion of the shipping bill to DEPB ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
