9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hin a period of 18 months for the FOB value as mentioned in the said licence and they were required to submit the particulars and documents evidencing the discharge of export obligation within 60 days from the date of expiry of export obligation. The appellants however got the licence amended by amendment sheet No. 1, dated 16-7-1997 making the advance licence invalid for direct import of raw wool. Raw wool 32,539.37 Kgs for Rs. 1,83,99,760/- was permitted to be procured indigenously from M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. The balance CIF value of Rs. 35,96,062/- was available for direct import. They again got it amended by Amendment sheet No. 2, dated 6-8-1997 by which raw material allowed for import vide amendment sheet No. 1 i.e. raw wool 32,539.37 Kgs was amended to fabrics (100% wool) 24,877.19 Kgs and raw wool allowed for indigenous procurement on amendment sheet No. 1, dated 16-7-97 was amended to fabrics (100% wool) 24,877.19 Kgs. No change was made in the CIF value of the advance licence as per DEEC Book No. 235174. The material obtained under advance licence No. 07000790, dated 3-7-1997 was eligible for exemption from customs duty subject to conditions specified in Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aging Director of M/s. Choice Apparels. 3. In the appeal petition they pleaded that the adjudicating authority failed to consider that the appellants in the process of issuance of licence and amended licence lost valuable orders as the foreign buyers were not prepared to wait for receiving the export consignments and the said delay has caused harm and injury to them. From the end of the year 1997, there was a change in the trend in International market for woollen garments and in spite of best efforts, the appellants could not procure export order. The adjudicating authority has come to the conclusion that the appellants are not eligible for exemption from customs duty on the ground that they have not fulfilled the conditions laid down in Notification No. 31/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997. In coming to this conclusion, he has not addressed to the circumstance leading to non-fulfilment of such condition which were beyond the control of appellants. They were making sincere efforts to revalidate the licence and to get the extension for fulfilment of export obligation. The adjudicating authority has failed to consider the circumstances under which obligation and condition of Notification No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of the advance release orders issued under Para 7.15 of Export-Import Policy 1997-2002 from M/s. Grasim Industries and the goods supplied by M/s. Grasim Industries were treated as deemed exports giving them all the benefits. On enquiry from the Central Excise Department, it was found that the goods were cleared under AR-3 for movement of goods from one warehouse to another warehouse as mentioned in the invoice itself and under AR-3. These were never cleared in terms of Notification No. 49/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-94. The appellants had neither claimed before the adjudicating authority nor in the written appeal that they have obtained the 100% wool fabrics under Notification No. 49/94-C.E. (N.T.), dated 22-9-1994. This is a new ground being raised, which cannot be entertained. She also stated that the bond was executed with the central excise only for due arrival of the goods from one warehouse to another warehouse for industrial use under Rule 192 of Central Excise Rules. Thus the claim of the appellants that they had cleared the goods under Notification No. 49/94 is totally incorrect. She also pleaded that the point on the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs as raise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the goods were cleared under Notification No. 49/94-C.E. (N.T.). He only referred to the invoice attached with the AR-3 forms under which the goods were cleared as deemed export by Grasim Industries to the appellant stating that the duty mentioned therein is excise duty. We find that since the appellants neither executed any bond with the Central Excise authority for due export of the goods manufactured out of the material procured from Grasim Industries nor they informed about this intention to Central Excise Authorities nor the appellants could produce any evidence before us about such action, we are not convinced that the goods have been procured by the appellants under Notification No. 49/94. This point raised at the stage of hearing of appeal was neither the issue in show cause notice nor in the impugned adjudication order. Therefore the point raised on the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs is rejected as the Commissioner of Customs before whom the DEEC was registered for due import and export of the goods is Competent authority to issue show cause notice and adjudicate the case for violation of the provisions of Notification No. 31/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997. 7. On me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
