9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 12-4-2001 for duty free import of 'frozen head-on shrimp' of 3.51 MT for CIF value US $ 10.533.60. The licence has been issued with a condition that the imported sea material should be exported within a period of 18 months after processing as 'block frozen headless shell-on shrimp' of 2280 kg. for FOB value of US $ 15.316.80. This DEEC licence was issued to M/s. Prapath Enterprises endorsing M/s. Devi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., 11/1, Purushottapuram, Near Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam, as supporting manufacturer. The condition sheet attached to the licence specified that the importer shall utilize the ex empted goods imported under the licence in, accordance with the provisions of the EXIM Policy and the concerned Customs Notification No. 51/2000 dated 27-4-2000 as amended. Other conditions specified in the licence include the submission of export obligation fulfillment certificate and non-transferability of the goods imported under the licence. As specified in Para (ii) of the Customs Notification No. 51/2000, the importer submitted a bond undertaking to pay, on demand and amount equal to the duty leviable, but for the exemption, on the imported materials in respect of which the conditi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses of the appellants and seized several documents. The authorities also recorded the statements of various persons. On completion of the investigation and scrutiny of the documents which were collected, the lower authority felt that the appellants had violated the provisions of DEEC Scheme for which a show cause notice was issued for recovery of: (i) An Amount of Rs.4,22,2907/- in terms of the Customs Notification No.51/2000; (ii) Interest Under Section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962; (iii) confiscation of the Goods under various provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act; and (iv) Imposition of penalty under Sections 112 and 114A of Customs Act, 1962. (iv) The appellant contested the show cause notice on various grounds, mainly on the ground that they have not completed the export obligation due to stiff competition. It was the submission that they have imported only 3.5 MT of sea material and not 10 432 MT as alleged. It was the submission that the total quantity, both imported as well as locally procured was finally exported by M/s. Satya Sea Foods, a sister concern of the M/s Devi Sea Foods, the supporting manufacturer which in turn, the export obligation has been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... procured the shrimp locally and also imported from Myanmar and mixed them together and sent to supporting manufacturer, M/s Devi Fisheries who in turn sent to M/s Satya Sea Foods who finally exported the consignment. He submitted that the local procurement of shrimp was made to make up for the deficit catch, there was no intention either to evade any customs duty or to indulge in smuggling as alleged. He submitted that the sales realization figures had been properly accounted for and reflected in the books of accounts. It was also the submission that the appellants had not complied with the export obligation, but there was no intention to misuse the provisions of DEEC licence. It is the submission that once duty foregone is realized by encashment of Bank Guarantee, the question of default does not arise. 4. The learned SDR submitted that the entire issue is totally misrepresented before the Tribunal. It is the submission that the appellants have not given any evidence regarding local purchase of the goods. It is the submission that the "weighment register" obtained from the supporting manufacturer indicated the receipt of 10.932 MTs of shrimps in their premises and payment bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addressed to owners of the vessel with whom the importer had a joint operation contract for fish catch in Myanmar waters which showed the total realization, for the fish catch of SHIVA-1 trawler as Rs.26,34137/-, the payment voucher No.614 indicating the total amount as Rs.26,34,137/-, printouts of the invoice copy No. 437 showing the same amount, extract of the movement analysis that indicated both the quantity and value of the goods purchased which could be tallied to the total quantity and value of the sea material obtained from the Trawler Shiva-1, ledger accounts of M/s. Satya Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. etc. evidencing the payment of Rs.26,34,137/- for 10,932.40 Kg of sea material from M/s. Prapath Enterprises. Another important evidence is the payment details made to one Sri Chintapili Raju, a labour contractor for unloading 11 MT sea material, for unloading of the cargo @ Rs. 500 PMT was for 11 tons of the material and not for 3.5 MT of the material, which they claim. It may be noted that this amount was paid for unloading of the material and not for handling or transport of the material from jetty to factory premises. The departmental allegation is thus backed by a number of evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
