9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... July, 1990. The export product under all the three licences has Gamma Acid. The material permitted for duty free import was Beta Naphthol. 3. As the appellant was a merchant exporter, the export product was got manufactured through supporting manufacturers. In the matter under consideration, M/s. Gamma Colours Ltd., Vapi were the supporting manufacturers and the name of the supporting manufacturer was indicated in the advance licence itself. 4. The export obligation, both in quantity and in value terms, was fulfilled prior to the import of the goods. 5. A total quantity of 226.025 MTs of Beta Naphthol (BN) was imported under all these three licences. Of this total quantity, [164.5] MTs was imported directly by the appellant and made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the supporting manufacturer. Similarly, in Para 11(d) of the order, the ld Commissioner had also held that out of the quantity imported by M/s. Usha on behalf of the supporting manufacturers, 26.83 MTs had not been account for by Gamma. The duty liability of Rs. 18.93 lakhs on the quantity of 26.83 MTs has been fastened on Usha on the only ground that it has been imported by Usha but made available to the supporting manufacturer. In accordance with the licensing condition, Usha had discharged its export obligation in full. The BN imported directly by M/s. Usha has also been made available in toto to the supporting manufacturer as required. Usha had neither sold or otherwise disposed of any of the material in contravention of the licence con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o queries from the Bench the ld. Counsel stated that he will in particular draw attention towards the observations of the Commissioner in which he has given reasons for not imposing penalty evidently because they had taken all the precautions which they could. In response to further queries he stated that they were not required to execute any bond as the export obligations had already been fulfilled and it was his submission that the fact that the offence has really been committed by the supporting manufacturer and not by them may be kept in view. The Bench wanted to know whether there was any joint responsibility or they were entirely responsible or there was any vicarious responsibility in the matter for determining the liability for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importer must enter into a bond(s) for fulfilment of the conditions subject to which the licence is granted and the conditions prescribed by the relevant notifications. Therefore, it is not clear as to how the ld. Counsel is stating that he was not required to enter into any bond; and he would also like to mention in this connection that the condition of fulfilling the export obligation is a different condition than the condition for proper utilisation of the imported material for the purpose indicated. In this case the provisions of Para 250 have not been complied with and therefore, the appellant being the licence holder was liable to pay the duty demanded. In fact the Commissioner has already taken a very lenient view but the duty re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
