9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upset the findings of the Commissioner that the import licence issued in the present case was invalid. 2. Briefly, the facts are that the respondent (hereafter referred to as "importer") at the relevant time imported goods valued at Rs. 6,46,73,363/- claiming that they were classifiable under Headings 8529 and 8543 of the Customs Tariff Act. Eventually, these were held to be falling under Heading 8528 and so dealt with. The bone of contention in the present case is as to the determination of the Tribunal that the importer had produced the relevant licence after the import. 3. The import in the present case was made during the period 17-7-1996 to 13-2-1997. Apparently, the importer did not possess the licence but had relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fication of any item in the ITC (HS) Handbook Vol. 1 and Handbook (Vol. 2), the said question or doubt shall be referred to the DGFT whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. However, in spite of clear provisions of Exim Policy and the opinion of the DGFT, the Customs Department still insisted on import licence and released the goods only against the ITC bond for full value of the goods and bank guarantee for Rs. 2.20 crores. We also find that even before the issue of show cause notice the bank guarantee was encashed. We fail to understand why this was done even before the matter had been adjudicated. 6. In our view, irrespective of the merits of the department's view point, once the import licence has been issued by DGFT spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been permitted to take further action and pursued itself to its logical conclusion. 7. In the facts of this case, it is not disputed that on 11-2-1995, the importer sought clarification from the DGFT as to the necessity of possessing the import licence. Concededly, the DGFT clarified that no such import licence was required. On that understanding, the goods in question were imported. It is not in dispute that the goods were cleared after they were classified under Heading 8528, in tune with the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. C-Net Communication (I) Pvt. Ltd., 2007 (216) E.L.T. 337 (S.C.). In these circumstances, the insistence of the Customs authorities that they should have their pound of flesh d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
