9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (7) TMI 439X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditions mentioned in letter dated 11-6-2001 had been complied by them. In view of this we hold that as the Appellants have not fulfilled the export obligation they have to pay differential Customs duty. We, therefore, uphold the demand of duty made against them. The capital goods which were imported by availing exemption under Notification No. 160/92 are liable to confiscation as the condition of the Notification has not been fulfilled by the Appellants. However, considering the fact that more than 64% export obligation has been fulfilled by them we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 3 crores to Rs. 1 crore only. For the same reason we reduce the penalty to Rs. 10 lakhs. The interest is chargeable from the Appellants though there was no provision for charging interest at the time of import of the machinery. However, at the time when they were to fulfil the export obligation the provision for charging the interest had come into effect. In 1998 when they failed to discharge their export obligation the provision of interest was very much on the statute book. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... national would show under the column Exporter's Details, "Parasrampuria Synthetic Ltd., Div. Parasrampuria International"; that thus the requirement about mentioning the name of the EPCG licence holder has been completely met; that while referring to Para 41(i) of EXIM Policy, 1992-97 the Commissioner has overlooked the provisions of Paragraph 6.5 of Policy, 1997-2002 inasmuch as Para 6.5(i) states that the export of some goods by different manufacturing unit of the licence holder can be clubbed; that obviously capital goods imported under EPCG Scheme cannot be installed in one unit only and if a view is taken that the goods of the other units must also be manufactured by the machinery so imported, the provisions of Para 6.5 would become impractical and defeat the very purpose of relaxation given therein. He further, mentioned that they had applied to D.G.F.T. for extension of the period of export under their letter dated 30-7-98; that D.G.F.T. informed the Appellants under letter dated 25-5-99 that they are eligible for extension of export obligation period up to 31-3-2000 provided they make a specific request along with bank guarantee covering the duty in proportion to the unfulf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92 at the time of importing the capital goods under EPCG Scheme which clearly provides that the importer has to export goods equivalent to four times CIF value of the capital goods over a period of 5 years under paragraph 38 of the Policy; that, therefore, the export obligation had to be fulfilled by the Appellants by April, 1998; that Para 41(i) of Policy 1992-97, relating to export obligation in respect of EPCG Scheme provided that the export obligation shall be fulfilled by the export of goods manufactured or produced by the use of capital goods imported under the Scheme; that as the capital goods were imported under EXIM Policy, 1992-97 the conditions contained in the said policy would be applicable to the Appellants; that paragraph 41(i) did not contain the last sentence of paragraph 6.5(i) of EXIM Policy, 1997-2002 which mentions that the export obligation may also be fulfilled by the export of same goods manufactured or produced in a different manufacturing unit of the licence holders; that in absence of such provision in Policy, 1992-97 the benefit of the exports made from another unit cannot be made available to the Appellants. The learned SDR, further, submitted that as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of notification No. 160/92-Cus., dated 20-4-92. It is also not disputed that they have not fulfilled the export obligation i.e. exporting goods equivalent to four times of CIF of capital goods over a period of 5 years. The Appellants wants to club figure of export made by M/s. Parasrampuria International relying upon Para 6.5(i) of the Export & Import Policy, 1997-2002 which the Revenue has not allowed. Para 6.5(i) of the Policy provides that "the export obligation may also be fulfilled by the export of the same goods, for which EPCG licence had been obtained, manufactured or produced in different manufacturing units of the licence holder." However, sub-para (ii) of Para 6.5 provides that the export shall be direct export in the name of EPCG licence holder. However, the export through third party(s) is also allowed provided the name of the EPCG licence holder is also indicated on the shipping bill. At the time of export EPCG licence number and date shall be endorsed on the shipping bill which are proposed to be presented towards discharge of export obligation." The learned SDR has submitted that the shipping bill under which Parasrampuria International had exported the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
