2000 (12) TMI 159 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are the denial of benefit under Notification No. 203/92-C.E. to the appellants for selling imported goods without redeeming the LUT, waiver of bond condition, and endorsement of transferability.

Summary:

1. Investigation and Denial of Benefit:
The Customs Authorities initiated investigations against the appellants for negotiating the sale of imported goods without redeeming the LUT. The authorities proposed to deny the benefit of Notification No. 203/92 and confirm a duty amount. The appellants contended that the redemption of LUT was the responsibility of D.G.F.T. under para 21 of the Export-Import Policy, and they had fulfilled their Export Obligation.

2. Commissioner's Decision:
The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, rejected the appellants' arguments, stating that the goods were sold before being regularized by D.G.F.T. He emphasized the importance of redeeming LUT before transferring imported goods, even though it was not a specific condition in Notification No. 203/92.

3. Adjudication and Rectification:
The appellants rectified procedural irregularities by reversing Modvat Credit and getting LUT redeemed through D.G.F.T. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the Notification due to initial irregularities, which were later rectified by the appellants.

4. Legal Arguments and Precedents:
The appellants cited legal precedents to support their case, including the reversal of Modvat Credit and the authority of D.G.F.T. to waive conditions under para 21 of the ITC Policy. They argued that the denial of benefits despite D.G.F.T.'s regularization amounted to challenging the authority's decision.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal set aside the Customs Authorities' decision, noting that the appellants had fulfilled their Export Obligation and rectified procedural lapses. They emphasized the binding nature of D.G.F.T.'s relaxation and concluded that the denial of benefits was unjustified.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellants, overturning the decision to deny them the benefit under Notification No. 203/92-C.E.