9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coercive action alleging that petitioner has unduly claimed benefit of advance authorisations issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (for short "DGFT"). 3. Petitioner states that it is engaged in inter alia, import, manufacture and export of aromatic chemicals, natural essential oils across the globe and that less than five per cent of its production is cleared in domestic tariff area. Petitioner earns valuable foreign exchange. 4. Petitioner states that it has been regularly importing "Eucalyptol Oil" and "Eucalyptus Oil" and using them as inputs for manufacturing products for export 'cineole' and pure cineole by carrying out processes such as unpacking, batching, distillation, filtration, blending, impurity removal, testing and drumming / packing. 5. Petitioner submits, advance authorisations are being regularly issued by DGFT in terms of chapter IV of the Foreign Trade Policies of the ministry of commerce from time to time, and based on the advance authorisations petitioner has been allowed duty free import of goods, which are to be physically incorporated in export products in terms of Notification No. 18 of 2015-Cus-1.4.2015. 6. On 15.1.2021, Petitioner imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner submits that respondents are not assessing the bills of entry and permitting clearance of the imported goods on a purported belief that the goods imported by the petitioner are not used in the manufacturing process and are exported as finished product and undue benefit of advance authorisations is being taken. However, there is nothing on record whereby it can be said that petitioner has not physically incorporated imported goods in exported products. The inquiry stands vitiated for incorrect belief. 12. He submits the petitioner has been importing and exporting goods for many years and have been complying with law including Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short "FTDR Act"). The respondents have taken samples of imported goods and are purportingly carrying on further investigation. Petitioner requires goods for its day to day manufacturing and to discharge contractual obligation to the foreign buyers. Due to inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioner is incurring heavy costs for container detention and demurrage charges. In the circumstances, the goods are bound to be provisionally assessed. 13. He submits that seizure of goods is unt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d March, 2021 and additional affidavit in reply dated 9th March, 2021. Respondents resist the petition contending that petitioner had obtained advance authorisations and are taking benefit of Notification No. 18/2015-cus dated 1.4.2015 importing goods without payment of customs duty. 19. It has been referred to, it had been learnt that petitioners have indulged in misuse of advance authorisations and are getting unwarranted and illegal exemption under the Notification. Their office as well as factory premises were visited. The visits revealed that while imports were being made with a view to use imported goods as raw material for production of finished goods, without any manufacturing activity, the same commodity as imported was being exported as finished product. 20. It is submitted that during investigation/search in his statement, key personnel of petitioner has referred to that in technical terms 'Cineole' and 'Eucalyptol' are considered as synonymous but in commercial parlance Eucalyptol and Pure Cineole are considered as different products and different prices are charged and realized by the petitioner. Although the process originally envisaged distillation of eucalyptol oi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2015 dated 1.4.2015 on misrepresentation, manipulation and non-compliance of requirements of advance authorisation scheme. Section 111 of the Customs Act provides for confiscation of goods brought from a place outside India. Petitioner without engaging in manufacturing activity has been exporting imported goods and also clearing some of it in domestic market in violation of conditions of advance authorisation and Notification 18/2015. 26. It is contended that the copies of panchanama have already been given to authorised representative of petitioner. It is submitted that test reports were not requested for by the petitioner and petitioner has to be confronted with the test reports. Even otherwise evidence including test reports are to be provided at the time of show-cause notice. It is denied that the samples were drawn behind the back of the petitioner. It is contended that samples have been drawn by petitioner's own authorised technical persons in presence of independent panchas and officers of Customs. Samples were got tested in Government established JNCH laboratory. Learned ASG purports to point out that even initial examination of goods as per the guidelines of Central Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest of the owner of the goods subject to executing a bond for the full/estimated value of the seized goods. Further, in addition to the Bond, the competent authority has to take bank guarantee or security deposit to cover (i) the entire amount of duty/differential duty leviable on the seized goods; (ii) amount of fine that may be levied in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. 32. He submits that request not to take any coercive action against the the Directors, employees of the petitioner is not proper and tenable without making the persons party to the petition. It is contended that there is evasion and offence. 33. Supreme Court decisions, viz. Dukhishyam Benupani Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria (1998) 1 S CC 52; and Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggrwal (2008) 13 SCC 305 have been referred to in support of submissions by the respondents. 34. It is requested not to show leniency or sympathy to the Petitioner. It is also stated that respondents be proceed with as per provisions of law for protection of government revenue. 35. In rejoinder technicalities are being sought to be explained in respect of chemistry with a view to refute contentions in affidavi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
