9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the color and specifications of marble imported against an Advance license are relevant factors. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the relevance of color and specifications of marble imported against an Advance License. The appellants imported off white marble slabs under an Advance License issued to another party who had exported pink and green marble slabs. The Deputy Commissioner disallowed the exemption, confiscated the marble, and imposed penalties due to the color discrepancy. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, emphasizing the importance of color in marble import/export. The appellant's advocate argued that the word 'relevant' was mistakenly added to the license and cited policy circulars supporting their case. They also referenced previous court decisions to support their argument that nexus proof was not required post-license transfer. The advocate contended that the demand to match colors was against policy circulars and unnecessary due to the deletion of 'relevant' from norms. The Department argued that the DEEC scheme aimed to enhance competitiveness and quality, highlighting the color quality difference between the exported and imported marble. The Tribunal considered both arguments. The marble exported was pink and green, while the imported marble was off white. The license conditions included the term 'relevant,' indicating that the imported marble should be capable of manufacturing the export product. The Tribunal noted that the Customs authorities must enforce license conditions without alteration. The circular from DGFT also emphasized the need for conformity in physical specifications, including color. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that color conformity is essential in marble imports. While past court decisions were cited, the Tribunal found the circumstances in this case to be different, as the 'relevant' term was added during license transfer. The Tribunal concluded that the imported marble did not conform to the license, thus denying the exemption. However, considering the ambiguity surrounding the term 'relevant,' no confiscation or penalty was warranted, leading to the setting aside of fines and penalties imposed on the appellants. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption due to color non-conformity but set aside the penalties imposed, considering the ongoing dispute over the term 'relevant' and the lack of mens rea on the appellants' part. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
