TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder advanced licence scheme. They imported Butyl Acrylate Monomer from Singapore and claiming the benefit of Notification No. 73/2005-Cus., dated 22-7-2005 on the basis of certificates of origin issued under India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (ISCECA). It was seen that out of 900 MT of Butyl Acrylate Monomer imported M/s. JIL sold part of the cargo to the various parties in India on bond transfer basis as detailed below : S. No. Name of the buyer Quantity of butyl acrylate 1. M/s. Plasticisers Polymers Products, Silvassa 40 MT 2. M/s. Atulit Chemicals Products, Indore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50 40,25,815/- 6,20,943/- 6,20,943/- 5. M/s. Soham Poly-mers Pvt. Ltd. 40 32,20,652/- 4,96,754/- 4,96,754/- Total :- 900 7,26,09,598/- 1,11,99,329/- 1,11,99,329/- 3. The main contention of the appellants is that they had imported goods of Singapore origin and stated that the certificate of ISCECA combined with declaration was issued by the office of the Director of Customs, Singapore. The goods were purchased from M/s. NU Alliance and the exemption was claimed on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ast (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of C. Ex., Bangalore - 2007 (215) E.L.T. 169 (S.C.) 13. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar v. Vallabh Design Products - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 73 (P H) 14. Stumpp, Schuele Somappa Ltd. v. Commr. of Cus. (Exports), Chennai - 2006 (194) E.L.T. 437 (Tri.-Bang.) 15. Tetra Pak (I) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva - 2005 (190) E.L.T. 257 (Tri.-Mum.) 16. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2003 (162) E.L.T. 680 (Tri.-Bang.) 17. Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. CC, Jamnagar - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 466 (Tri.-Ahmd.) 4. And argued that these judgments will cover their case and as per principle of judicial discipline the adjudicating authority should have followed these ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts goods of the description as specified in Column (3) of the Table appended hereto and falling under the tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as specified in the corresponding entry in Column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India from Republic of Singapore, from the whole of duty of customs leviable thereon which is specified in the said First Schedule, subject to the condition that the importer proves to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formed that they have completed their investigation in this case and they have shared the following information in this regard. The investigations have revealed that M/s. Marubeni Chemical Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. had applied for and obtained a total of 34 CECA certificates to export Acrylates (Butyl and Ethyl) India declaring them to be of Singapore origin whereas the said Acrylates were obtained from Taiwan and Korea. It was also found that the said company had obtained falsely declared CECA certificates for the following exporters also for their use in exporting Acrylates not of Singapore origin to India. (1) ... (2) Nu-Alliance Pte Ltd. (3) ... The details of the falsely declared CECA certificates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed period. In a case where the exporter obtains the credit of duty by adopting fraudulent means and uses such credit while importing the goods, it would be a plain case covered by the extended period of limitation. When an exporter fraudulently obtains the credit and he himself does not import but transfers the benefit to the purchaser of the DEPB scrips, as has been done in the present case, the element of fraud will not vanish and the benefit fraudulently given will not become lawful merely by passing it on to the purchaser. There is no reason to put a narrow construction on the provisions of Section 28(1) by holding that the duty-credit benefit fraudulently obtained which has resulted in non-levy of import duty should be differently view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
