TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n any way concord with the requirements of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 which benchmarks time and place of exportation as critical to acceptance of a value. The scrip does not conform any privilege; it prescribes a ceiling of eligibility for duty free import that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the licensing authority. It is the utilisation of the scrip that triggers exemption from duty and, to the extent of ineligibility, arising from overvaluation of exports, can be proceeded against for recovery of the duty unpaid in consequence under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - In the absence of such proceedings, a bland order of recovery is without legal authority as it does not have sanctity of law. Confiscation of goods under s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme. Besides ordering recovery of the excess benefit, penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- was imposed on the importer and on M/s Narendra Industries of ₹ 5,00,000/-, the other appellant, under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. It is contended by Learned Counsel for appellants that M/s Narendra Industries was penalised without authority of any specific provision of Customs Act, 1962 as that enterprise was merely involved in job work, for and on behalf of the exporter, and, hence, outside the ambit of that law. It would appear from the submission made by Learned Authorised Representative that penalty was imposed on M/s Narendra Industries for having given misleading statements and inconsistent submission during the course ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e privilege of the scheme. It is also his contention that there has been no misdeclaration of the value and that adoption of local market price from the persons who are not in the business of exports does not suffice to relieve the obligation to determine value under Customs Act, 1962. 4. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of Om Prakash Bhatia v. Commissioner [2003 (155) ELT 423 (SC)] to defend the jurisdiction to proceed with valuation for the purpose of determination of the detriments, viz. fine on confiscated goods and penalty, even if no duty is leviable. The decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad v. Pennar Industries Ltd [2015 (322) ELT 402 (SC)] an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the goods which could, then, have had a bearing on redetermining of transaction value. Reliance placed on ascertainment from local market does not in any way concord with the requirements of section 14 of Customs Act, 1962 which benchmarks time and place of exportation as critical to acceptance of a value. Furthermore, we find that the order restricting the entitlement to benefits of the scheme in the Foreign Trade Policy has been compounded with an order for recovery of excess eligibility arising therefrom. The scrip does not conform any privilege; it prescribes a ceiling of eligibility for duty free import that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the licensing authority. It is the utilisation of the scrip that triggers exemption fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
