9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 389X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have filed Settlement applications bearing No. SA(C) No. 352-353/2003, dated 24-1-2003 in respect of Show Cause Notice (SCN) F.No. S2-64/2002-SIB, dated 6-9-2002 issued by Dy. Commissioner of Customs, SIB, Customs House, Kolkata. 2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is the holder of advance licence No. 0210018809/3, dated 17-1-2001 which permitted import of fabrics for CIF value of Rs. 10,01,91,441/- with an obligation to export garments for US $ 29,40,400.97 or Rs. 13,52,58,445/-. They had imported 79 consignments of fabrics for the manufacture of garments for export. For this purpose they availed exemption under Notification 48/99-Cus., dated 29-4-1999 at nil rate of duty. The applicant had submitted three shipping bills alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act); (iii) the P.D. Bonds executed at the time of import should not be enforced; (iv) bank guarantee of Rs. 22,54,000/- executed at the time of importation should not be encashed; (v) penal action against the applicant and the co-applicant as well as one more Director, Shri Paritosh Chander should not be taken under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Act; (vi) penal action under Section 114A of the Act should not be taken for violation of the Notification 48/99-Cus., dated 29-4-1999 which have rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act. 3. Against the aforesaid Show Cause Notice, which is pending before the Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Kolkata, the applicant as well as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hence was not in a position to make any submission or defend the applicants. The representative for the Revenue requested that the case be returned to the Department so that they could proceed in the matter and realise the amount due to the Government. At this point, the Commission asked Revenue to inform the Bench within one month whether it had any details of the properties and other assets owned by the applicant which could be attached for recovery of the sums due from the applicant. 6. The next hearing was held on 30-1-2004. During this hearing the Advocate for the applicant submitted that his client was detained under COFEPOSA Act and hence he was not able to contact him. According to him his client was unable to pay duty liability b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in control of the department and his stocks. Thereafter a further hearing took place on 16-4-2004. During this hearing, Shri Navneet Panwar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant informed the Bench that Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate who has been appearing for the applicant could not come to attend the hearing due to ill health and prayed for fixing another date for the hearing. The Bench pointed out that almost a year had elapsed since the admission hearing took place and that the applicant had not deposited the admitted duty liability even after directions from the Bench. The Bench enquired from the Revenue as to how they were going to realise the dues from the applicant as the details of movable/immovable assets of the applicant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
