9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd claiming classification under Chapter Heading 7005 and produced DFRC licence to clear the same. (b) 8 of the consignments have been cleared after examination of the consignments and granting exemption under the DFRC licence without any dispute. The 9th consignment covered by Bill of Entry No. 110490 dated 10-11-2003 was seized for misdeclaration and allowed clearance after execution of bond with bank guarantee. 4. The Original Authority in pursuance of show cause notice dated 11-11-2004 held that the goods imported by them were all Glazed Glass and not Glazing Glass; that they fall under the category of Float Glass and classifiable under Chapter Heading 7005; they were not useable in the exported products namely leather goods, for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the licence being transferable, no nexus is required to be looked into except in respect of sensitive items covered by para 4.31 of Hand Book of Procedure Vol. I and as stipulated in proviso to Condition No. II of Notification No. 46 of 2002-Customs dated 22-4-2002. Ld. Advocate also relies on the Circular No. 24 of 2002-Customs dated 6-5-2002 and Circular No. 46 of 2007-Customs dated 20-12-2007, which clarify that a co-relation between inputs imported and the inputs used in the export products is not required to be established except in respect of sensitive items, specified in Para 4.31 of Hand Book of Procedure. 6.1 Ld. SDR took us through the Policy Provisions governing Duty Free Replenishment Certificate Scheme especially para 4.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported by invoices of the manufacturer containing the same description. They have produced the DFRC licence for availing the Notification No. 42 of 2002. It appears that the Customs Officers have examined the goods as well as the DFRC licence produced and raised no objection to the said clearance. Therefore, even if, on merits, the matter is to be held against them, we do not find any mis-declaration on the part of the appellant-company. Therefore, as held in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Float Glass Ltd. & Ors., the demand in respect of these consignments is clearly time barred. 7.2 We reproduce the relevant portion of the order in the case of M/s. Lakshmi Float Glass Ltd. & Ors., as follows:- "3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
