9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -8-1992 for revalidation. Subsequent to the clearance it was found out that the C.C.I.E s letter dated 17-8-1992 has only extended the period of export obligation upto 31-12-1992 and not revalidating the licence upto 31-12-1992 as declared and claimed by the importer. A demand notice for an amount of Rs. 35,97,186/- proposing to reassess the goods under Customs Tariff Heading [2941.50] at 65% + 45% and (sic) Central Excise Tariff Heading at 15% plus 15%. The importers replied in their letter dated 24-10-1992 that they were not aware of the implications in letter dated 17-8-1992 of the C.C.I.E. and they were under the impression that the licence itself was revalidated upto 31-12-1992. They however promised that they would get the licence revalidated within two months time to justify the clearance already made against the advance licence under the Customs Notification No. 159/88. The importer did not produce the revalidated licence before the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector held that the consignment invoice specifically mentions the fact that the goods are freely importable under Item No. 495 Part A of Appendix 3 Code No. 34-1232/00-3 and also that payment were to be mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of the goods, but also should be valid when actual import takes place. As per endorsement of the DEEC, the export obligation period was extended thrice on 31-10-1991, 17-8-1992 and 17-6-1993 upto 30-6-1993. In view of these endorsements which had been done at the request of the importers, none can come to conclusion that the appellant were under a mistaken impression that the extension of Export obligation period is taken for extension of validity of the Advance licence. The appellate authority has further failed to observe the instructions given in Para 125 (Page 37) of the Hand Book of Procedures, (1-5-1992 - 31-3-1997) on the aspect of revalidation of licence. These instructions inter alia specify that the application for revalidation shall be made before the expiry of the licence. In the instant case it is beyond reasonable doubt, that the application for revalidation was made by the appellant after the expiry of the said Advance Licence. This is not in the nature of technical lapse as viewed by the appellate authority. This is a clear case of flagrant violation by the appellant of the procedures as laid down by the licensing authorities. 4. The learned SDR Shri V. Thya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s had been issued a licence under the export oriented scheme which has been described as advance licence for manufacture of specified export product and the items allowed for import are duty free as being covered by the description of the goods in the licence and the DEEC book whose number is also endorsed on the licence. The respondents as seen from the endorsement made in the licence executed a bond for the purpose of fulfilment of the export obligation before the present importation. The respondents had also made several importation against this licence earlier. The Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) is dated 16-10-1990. The import licence under which the goods have been imported is incorporated therein. In terms of this certificate, the appellants have been allowed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 116/88 dated 30-3-1988 and the certificate has been signed by the Assistant Controller of Imports and Exports. This certificate carries Parts A, B, C D and annexures in which name and address and the factory in which the resultant product has to be manufactured is in Part A and the list of raw materials are endorsed in Part C of this and these are duly signed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mport. The importation of the goods has to be planned by the importer depending upon his capability of export. If there is any difficulty in the matter of export, necessarily the plan of importation will also be equally affected. The respondents in the present case, felt the need for the period of export obligation to be extended and the licensing authorities allowed this and endorsed the extended period in the DEEC. This would mean that the respondents could import the goods in the sequence in a manner to be able to export the goods till the extended period of the export obligation. The appellants should have in the normal course simultaneously approached the authorities for endorsement on the face of the licence for extension of the period for the importation of the goods as per the licence. However, it is seen that the respondents obtained only the extension for meeting the export obligation. They had at that time lot of time to import the raw material to meet the export obligation since the period of export obligation had been extended. It was clear that the respondents could yet import the raw materials which were required to be imported against the licence which was endorsed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
