TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 431X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been in a position to back out without the risk of losing money. In these set of circumstances, we agree with the appellant that making part payment against a proforma invoice would constitute concrete steps for import of impugned goods and as these steps were taken prior to 24.11.2008, the ratio of CESTAT judgement in the case of P.T. Impex Pvt. Ltd. (2015 (4) TMI 642 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) would be applicable. - Redemption fine and penalty is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee. - Appeal No. C/239/2010-CU(DB) - F. Order No. 53552/2015 - Dated:- 18-11-2015 - Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) And Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member (Judicial) For the Petitioner : Shri O.P. Agarwal, C.A. For the Respondent : Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t took place after the restriction was imposed by DGFT. Therefore the impugned order is sustainable. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. The contention of Revenue is there was no agreement between the appellant and the foreign supplier entered into before 24.11.2008 for supply of the impugned goods. However, an agreement need not always be in writing. In the present case, we find that there was a proforma invoice of 13-10-2008 in response to which part payment of US $.14,300/- was sent on 18.11.2008 which was prior to the imposition of restriction on 24.11.2008. Thus there is certainly substantial force in the contention of the ld. Consultant that all this amounts to concrete steps taken prior to 24.11.2008 for the impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ement between the parties for the export and import was entered into and had crystallised prior to the change in the policy. The appellant is entitled to paragraph 1.5 of Chapter 1A of the FTP 2004-09. The decision of this Tribunal in Viraj Impex Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2004 (177) E.L.T. 960 (Tri.-Mumbai) is an authority for the proposition that where an importer has entered into a contract in good faith, at a time when goods were importable freely, without restrictions; and had no means to forseeing restrictive changes in the import policy, there is no justification for imposing a redemption fine. The Punjab Haryana High Court dismissed Revenue s appeal against the said order vide order reported at 2015 (321) ELT 38 (P H). Indeed simil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
