TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Therefore, the respondent has not been able to fulfill the export obligation and also has violated the conditions of the advance licenses. The seized 335.293 MTs of stainless steel coils / sheets are very much liable for confiscation as proposed in the notice - only for the limited purpose of considering for extending the option for redeeming the goods with imposition of redemption fine under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and the quantum thereof, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority. Appeal allowed by way of remand. - C/399/2007 - 40876/2017 - Dated:- 25-5-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... changed on the said duty demanded under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the terms of Bond executed by them under provisions of Customs Notification Nos.43/2002 as amended; (iv) 1106.540 MTs of diverted/sold goods valued at ₹ 12,96,53,001/- should not be held liable for confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; (v) 335.293 MTs of stainless steel coils / sheets should not be confiscated under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; (vi) Penalty should not be imposed on M/s. Karware Impex Pvt. Ltd. under section 114A/112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (vii) The provisions of Bond given in terms of Customs Notification No. 43/2002 at the time of clearance of the goods in question should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... paragraphs 52 and 53 of the impugned order, he submitted that the Commissioner has erred in holding that though there is shortage of the imported duty-free material, the respondent had still sufficient time to manufacture and export the goods, since the period as per the advance license was still to expire when the investigation was launched. So also he observed that there was no proper stock taking done and in the absence of proper stocking, it cannot be held that there was shortage of raw material. Learned AR argued that when there is a shortage of raw material, it is for the respondent to explain the same whereas the learned Commissioner has observed that the department has not been able to adduce any evidence to show that there is dive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utensils/articles were exported. The export obligation was 887.021 MTs. Further, at the time of inspection there was only 335.293 MTs of imported duty-free materials available as stock. The respondent has not been able to reasonably explain as to why there was shortage of imported duty-free materials at the time of visit of the DRI officers. The reasoning given by the Commissioner is that the respondents had sufficient time to manufacture and export the goods as the period prescribed for export of the goods was not yet over when the investigation launched. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under:- 52. I have carefully gone through the show cause notice, the relied upon documents and the defense arguments advanced by the notices ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing of the samples taken during investigation, is completely missing. Again this is of vital importance to arrive at whether such finished / semi-finished goods were made of imported raw material or not. In the absence of test reports it cannot be affirmatively concluded that the same were not made of imported material. Hence in the absence of proper stocktaking it cannot be held that there was shortage of the raw material. 53. As regards the 335.293 MTs of Stainless Steel Sheets / Coils that were actually found in the stock of the factory it has not been alleged that the same are not imported materials. It has also not been denied that the same do not belong to Importer. The documents viz the B/Es, the packing list, the invoice and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appeal and no separate appeal having been filed against such noticees, the proceedings dropped against the high sea sellers (7 Nos.) are not interfered with. The plea in the appeal on this score dismissed. The impugned order is modified only to the extent of confirming the demand of duty, interest and penalty proposed in show cause notice against M/s.Karware Impex Pvt. Ltd. only. For the same reasons, the seized 335.293 MTs of stainless steel coils / sheets are very much liable for confiscation as proposed in the notice. So ordered. However, only for the limited purpose of considering for extending the option for redeeming the goods with imposition of redemption fine under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and the quantum thereof, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
