TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e bond executed by them as per the conditions of the Customs Notification No. 30/97, dated 1-4-1997, 51/2000, dated 27-4-2000 and 48/99, dated 29-4-99 as amended. He has also demanded interest under Section 28AB of the Act ibid and has also ordered enforcement of the bonds/bank guarantee executed towards recovery of duty and other adjudication liabilities. He has also confiscated the goods imported duty free, under Section 111(o) of the Act ibid and since the goods were not available, a fine of Rs. 40,00,000/-(Rupees Forty lakhs) has been imposed under Section 125 of the Act, besides a penalty of Rs. 2,57,82,659/- (Rupees Two crores, fifty-seven lakhs, eighty-two thousand, six hundred fifty-nine) under Section 114A of the Act. 2.Brief facts of the case are that on specific intelligence that some of importers of Stainless Steel Coils/Sheets and Exporters of Stainless Steel utensils under Advance licence (DEEC) who availed the benefit of Customs Notification Nos. 30/97-Cus., dated 1-4-97, 51/2000-Cus., dated 27-4-2000 and 48/99, dated 29-4-1999 were misusing the Advance licences by diverting the duty free imported raw materials instead of utilising the same for manufacture of the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants invited our attention to the grounds of appeal and submitted that as per the definition of "Actual User (Industrial)" in terms of the EXIM Policy for the year 1997-2002, the importer of the raw material under the DEEC scheme could either utilise the goods for manufacturing export product in his own factory or get the export product manufactured out of such material in job workers' premises. He submitted that the appellants' activities were carried on mainly through job workers and the raw material was stored at Royapurm, polishing work and manufacturing activities were carried out at 183, Waltax Road and the final packing and export operations were carried out from Godown at 11, Pillayar Koil Street, Waltax Road Chennai-600 003. He has submitted that in terms of the licence, the appellants have imported 638.368 MT of Stainless Steel and exported 500.716 MT of utensils and thus filled the export obligation and this fact cannot be disputed. He has further submitted that after effecting the exports, appellants have obtained necessary shipping bill, which were released after testing the export cargo by the Customs and based on such shipping bills and Test Reports, Expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in the case of Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. 626 (S.C.). She has also filed a copy of the para-wise comments, furnished by the Deputy Director, DRI, dated 24-9-2004. 5.We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the comments furnished by the DRI, and gone through the case records. We find that admittedly, in terms of the licences, the appellants had imported 638.368 MTs of Stainless Steel and exported 500.716 MTs of utensils and thus fulfilled the export obligation which fact is not in dispute. Such discharge of export obligation has been certified by the licensing authority itself. It was at the DRIs instance that the JDGFT initiated proceedings for cancelling the licences and penalising the appellants. The said proceedings culminated in a quasi-judicial order bearing file No. X(49)/Misc/2003/ECA/CHE, dated 10-12-2003 passed by the JDGFT, Chennai wherein the said authority categorically held that export obligation has been discharged in terms of the licence. Relevant portion of the JDGFT's order is extracted herein below for convenience of reference : "I do not find any difficulty in deciding this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preferred against the JDGFT's order. Apparently, the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal has already expired. In the result, it has to be held that JDGFT's order stands accepted by the Revenue. With regard to licence conditions, the licensing authority has certified full discharge of export obligation by the appellants. The adjudicating authority under the Foreign Trade (D R) Act has found no violation of licence conditions on their part and its order has been accepted by the Revenue. Hence the Revenue cannot be seen to be critical of that order, nor can the SDR be heard to argue against it. It goes without saying that the case law cited by the Department cannot improve the Revenue's case or plight. The Revenue's allegation was that the appellants had violated conditions (vii) and (viii) of the Notification No. 30/97 and similar conditions of Notification No. 51/2000. But in this regard, the JDGFT's order has taken the wind out of Revenue's sail's. In the result, the charge of breach of conditions of the Customs Notifications does not survive. Hence, now, there is no reason to deny the benefit of the Notifications to the appellants or take any penal action against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
