9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a), Custom House, Chennai. The said application was admitted by this Bench vide Admission Order No. 16/2001, dated 29-11-2001. 2. The facts in brief relevant for disposal of the application are that the applicant obtained two quantity based advance licences bearing No. 3491572, dated 17-3-95 and 2040439, dated 30-3-1995 from JDGFT, Bangalore which permitted import of raw materials namely, TL-16 optical resin, Di-butyle Malgate, Perkadox with corresponding obligation to export hi-index lenses and 72 MM and 77 MM single vision lenses, for FOB value of Rs. 70,98,750/- US $ 225000 under each licence. On the basis of specific information, that the applicant had not fulfilled the export obligation and they have sold off the factory to a Multi- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation. He added that the applicant's plea with reference to their bona fides, especially in the context of approaching the JDGFT and also the Customs for de-bonding of the goods imported as a 100% EOU, have no relevance. He submitted further that the applicant is bound to pay the interest, as per the provisions contained in the EXIM Policy and by virtue of the legal undertaking given by the applicant. In particular, he drew attention to para 128 of the Handbook of Procedures, 1992-1997. He, therefore, concluded by saying that the applicant is liable to pay the interest and they are not entitled for immunities as they paid the duty only after the case was detected by the officers of the DRI. 5. The Bench has perused the relevant records ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dvance licences. Vide letter F. No. 07/02/190/4309/AM 95-96, dated 28-3-2001/F. No. 07/02/190/4404/AM 95, dated 2-4-2001, the JDGFT, Bangalore has adjusted the SIL against the shortfall in exports in respect of both the advance licences. The above act will show that even before the officers of DRI took up the investigation, the applicant had in fact approached the JDGFT for regularisation, as they have failed to fulfil the export obligation. It is also seen that the applicant had paid Rs. 21,05,271/- on 7-9-2000 by a TR 6 challan and also Rs. 42,40,069/- through a DD, dated 26-9-2000. In other words, in about a month of the search by the DRI officers, the applicant has paid the said amount. These acts do demonstrate their eagerness to compl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (2) of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962, which itself came into existence much later to the import of the goods, i.e., in 1996 only. Therefore, the Bench holds that the applicant is not liable to pay any interest in this case under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. Taking into account all the above facts, the Bench settles the case in terms of Section 127C(7) as follows : (1) The total duty liability is fixed at Rs. 30,99,664/-. The said amount already having been paid, no further duty is due from the applicant. (2) No interest is chargeable under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. (3) Immunity is granted from liability to confiscation of the goods, fine and penalty. (4) Immuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
