TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 644X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner that the imports were against cancelled Contract No.TTHK 09027 and not authorized is incorrect. On the contrary, the said contract No.TTHK 09027 was cancelled and Registration No.216/CBN/ Poppy Seeds/2009-10 has been surrendered; hence the consignments imported were against Contract No.TTHK 09028 with Registration No.217/CBN/Poppy Seeds/2009-10, which was validly obtained. Therefore, imports were authorised under Contract No.TTHK 09028 and under valid Registration No.217/CBN/Poppy Seeds/2009-10. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No.537 of 2012 - FINAL ORDER NO.A/88344 / 2018 - Dated:- 22-11-2018 - DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of EXIM Policy. For the first time, the Appellant entered into two contracts bearing No.TTHK 09027 and TTHK 09028, dt.30.06.2009 with M/s Tampico Co., Hongkong for delivery of White Poppy Seeds of Chinese origin. Contract No. TTHK 09027 was for destination at Mumbai port whereas the contract No. TTHK 09028 was having destination at Nhava Sheva port. The Appellant on 06.07.2009, filed an application for registration of Contract No. TTHK 09027 with Central Bureau Narcotics (CBN), Gwalior as required. Vide letter dt.14.07.2009, certain discrepancies were pointed out in the Appellant s application and thereafter, they filed necessary clarification and revised application along with original contract showing port of export. On 20.07.2009, the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of ₹ 5.00 lakhs imposed under 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of ₹ 2.00 lakhs imposed on the Appellant under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the present appeal. 5. At the outset, the learned Advocate Shri V.M. Doiphode, assailing the impugned order, has submitted that even though the learned Commissioner in the impugned order observed that the Appellants at the given time, had valid registration in respect of both the contracts viz.TTHK 09027 and TTHK 09028 and could have used either of them for import clearance, but erred in holding that import was not under authorized contract. Also, the learned Commissioner observed that the Appellant had surrendered the Contract No.TTHK 09027 on their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent for necessary correction, to the issuing authority, who issued new certificate, which was communicated to the Department. Further he has submitted that a certificate dt.18.11.2009 received from M/s Tampico Trading Co. Ltd, Hongkong certifying that the four consignments supplied to the Applicant were under Contract No.TTHK 09028 and they have received full payment and details were given in the said certificate. The learned Commissioner has ignored the letter dt.11.11.2010 addressed to Consulate General of India at Hongkong where under it is confirmed that based on joint undertaking received by them from Gansu Yubaoze Nongken Pooy Seeds Biological Co. Ltd, China, and M/s Tampico Trading (HK) Ltd, that they had certified the said cargo i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09-10, dt.04.09.2009. The allegation of the Department, on the other hand, is that the documents filed for import of the said White Poppy Seeds refers to Contract No.TTHK 09027 and there are certain discrepancies in the documents relating to said imports. I find that the learned Commissioner in the impugned order, has clearly recorded that the Contract No.TTHK 09027 has been surrendered/cancelled along with CBN Registration No.216/CBN/ Poppy Seeds/2009-10. He has further observed the Appellant could have used either of the contracts for import of the goods of Chinese Origin. The learned Commissioner, though had not doubted the bonafide of the Appellant, but observed that the Appellant has not been authorized to import goods against Contract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
