TMI Blog2001 (1) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to make the exported product. Jupiter Exports, one of the appellants before us, manipulated documents such as test reports and invoices to show that it had exported fabrics of weight and length considerably greater than what actually was exported. In accordance with the provisions of the Policy, where the export obligation has been fulfilled, the import licence can be transferred. These licences were utilised by various persons to import the goods specified therein without payment of duty in terms of Notification 204/92. On their importation, the importers claimed, and were granted the benefit of exemption. 2.Investigations made by the department subsequent to the import, revealed the fact that much of what had been claimed to be expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot maintainable. Hence penalty is not imposable. 5.The departmental representative's answer is as follows. Jupiter Exports had by manipulation and falsification of documents, claimed to have exported the goods most of which it did not export. It obtained the import licences by making wilful misdeclaration. Again, by misrepresentation as to the quantity of the export, it obtained permission to transfer the licences. But for these facts, import of these goods would not have been permissible. Therefore it is the deemed importer. He has an alternative argument. This is that, the proviso under Section 28(1) refers to the extended period being available on account of wilful mis-statement by the importer or exporter. Therefore Jupiter Exports is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out to be the importer at any time between their importation and their clearance for home consumption. 8.In the case before us we do not see how Jupiter Exports becomes a person chargeable to duty. It was not the importer of the goods. We are not able to see how it is otherwise chargeable with import duty. It did not have anything with the import of the goods or at any time with the imported goods. It had no connection whatsoever with these goods. The demand for duty has to be based on law, and not on moral considerations. In any event, such a duty cannot be recovered from the original holder of the import licence only for his being such licencee. 9.The departmental representative's argument does not really help his case. Section 28 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
