TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 32.500 No imports 7. 0410027928/1-7-0202 45.240 No imports 155.679 In terms of the licences and the Customs Notifications, the appellants had to fulfil export obligation in respect of the above imports, by exporting SS utensils. They exported 123 MTs of SS utensils towards export obligation under the 5 licences mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 5 above. In respect of the remaining 2 licences, there were no prior imports for exports which were made of 68.785 MTs of SS utensils (manufactured out of raw materials procured from local market) during the short time between the date of application for licence and the date of issue of licence. On the whole, 191.786 MTs of SS utensils were exported in relation to the 7 advance licences. For easy reference, the export particulars are shown below :- S.No. Licence No. Date Qty. exported (MTs) 1. 04014147/9-11-98 25.001 2. 0410006327/29-5-2000 20.000 3. 0410006328/29-5-2000 25.000 4. 0410006329/29-5-2000 25.000 5. 0410014986/31-5-2001 28.000 6. 041002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he SCN) under Sec. 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I allow the goods to be redeemed on payment of a fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) under Sec. 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. (d) I deny the benefits claimed under DEEC for the export of 68.785 MTs of S.S. Utensils procured from the local market and exported by quoting advance licence Nos. 0410024246, dated 14-3-2002 and 0410027928, dated 1-7-2002 as these exports cannot be considered as fulfilment of export obligation against these two licences and consequently, no imports can be made duty free against these licences. (e) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on M/s. Navajyothi International under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962." The present appeal is against this order of the Commissioner. 3. Examined the records. It appears that, on a request made by DRI for cancellation of the aforesaid 2 advance licences, No. 410024246, dtd. 14-3-2002 and No. 410027928, dtd. 1-7-2002, the DGFT had issued a show cause notice to the party on 20-10-2003 and the same was also contested. That dispute was adjudicated upon by the Joint DGFT (Enforcement-cum-Adjudication) as per or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he customs authorities or on this Tribunal. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of this Bench in CC, Chennai v. Lotus Chocolate Co. Ltd., 2003 (155) E.L.T. 613 (Tri.-Chennai). It was also submitted that the DGFT or JDGFT had no authority to interpret the Customs Notifications. Licensing conditions and Notification conditions were two distinct aspects and fulfilment of the former did not necessarily imply fulfilment of the latter. Ld. SDR, in this connection, sought to draw support from the Supreme Court's decision in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI, 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.). Again, referring to the JDGFT's order which held that the appellants had discharged their export obligation under all the advance licences, learned SDR argued that such discharge of export obligation ipso facto did not preclude the customs authorities from investigating into the case to find out whether there was evasion of customs duty. In this connection, she relied on the Madras High Court's decision in South India Exports, Chennai Ors. v. Joint DGFT Sr. Intelligence Officer, DRI, Chennai, 2004 (177) E.L.T. 57 = 2004 (91) ECC 555 (Mad.). 6. We have carefully considered the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is required only for those item which contained prior import condition and not otherwise." As it was not mandatory to get supporting manufacturers' (jobbers') names endorsed on the advance licences, it was permissible for the appellants to get the imported raw material processed through jobbers other than M/s. Heena International. Hence, in respect of 68.972 MTs of raw-material processed into SS utensils through non-declared jobbers, there was no breach of condition (vii). The finding recorded by the Commissioner with reference to condition (viii) is not cogent. After reading this condition followed by condition (vii), he holds thus : "………..it is quite clear that 53.060 MTs of S.S. utensils got manufactured by job workers not mentioned in the licences and exporter are not eligible for export benefits as claimed. This is against the obligations enforced by the DEEC licence quoted therein." In any case, this finding is contradictory to the JDGFT's findings. According to the latter, the appellants could validly get the imported raw material processed into finished goods through non-declared jobbers. This is precisely what the appellants did for export of 53.060 MTs of SS ute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
