9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 266X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thetic alkyd enamel white, of which 2000 tons was required to be exported. The appellant imported between November 1988 and March 1990 540 tons of titanium dioxide. 2. The officers of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) received some information sometime in 1991, that the appellant had not completed the export obligation that it was required to make and dispose of the raw material imported without payment of duty in contravention of law. Statements of Rastogi and other officers of the company were recorded and other information carried out. This resulted in the seizure of 38.253 tons of titanium dioxide which was at the premises of Paras Warehousing Corporation, appellant in appeal C/138/95. Investigation also revealed that sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of fine and imposed a penalty on the importer, Sunil Shah and Paras Warehousing Corporation. Hence these appeals. 5. We have heard Mr. Naresh Thacker, advocate, for Chemical D-Universe Ltd. and Mr. J.C. Patel, advocate, for Sunil J. Shah. Paras Warehousing Corporation was absent and unrepresented. 6. The contention of the importer can be summarised as follows. The appellant had exported 1908.48 tons of synthetic alkyd enamel white. Therefore, proportionately it was entitled to import 563 tons of titanium dioxide. It has utilised 347.75 tons towards manufacture of export product. Since it has proportionately completed the export obligation, it could sell the remaining quantity. This is permitted in paragraph 244(3) of the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 96. 8. We are entirely unable to accept this contention. The relevant paragraph of the policy, which is reproduced above, makes it clear that before any replenishment material required to be sold, the permission of the licensing authority is to be obtained. We do not find convincing the explanation offered to us for not applying for the permission for more than eight years. The show cause notice was issued in 1992, the Commissioner's order passed in December 1994 and the appeal to the Tribunal in 1995. Despite all these, the appellant has not even bothered to ask the licensing authority. In any event, it will be crystal clear, that there was no attempt, before the goods was sold, to seek the permission of the licensing authority. 9.& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es for holding the other goods liable for confiscation would not apply to those goods. These goods were still in the possession of the appellant when they were seized, there is no contravention of the conditions of paragraph 244(3). The fact that they have not been used in the manufacture of export products, as we have noted, would not be relevant, if they are replenishment materials. In the light of this fact, considering that the application for sale is pending, we order that if the appellant obtained permission for sale of the goods from the licensing authority, the sale expenses to be refunded to the appellant. 10. A penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs has also been imposed on the importer, in addition to the demand for duty of Rs. 80 lakhs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
