9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioner is also challenging the show cause notice dated 18th October, 1993 at Exhibit 'G'; whereby, the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why the demand set up against them for short levy to the extent of 13,46,096/- should not be confirmed and why action for recovery thereof should not be initiated under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Factual matrix : 2. Factual matrix giving rise to the present petition in nutshell appears to be as under : 3. The petitioner is fully export oriented unit. It manufactures various types of automobile rubber parts, which are fully exported. The petitioner, as per the Import Policy for past several years, has been recognised as eligible exporters. The petitioner was given advance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the request made by the petitioner in import with the result the value restrictions which were put in the licences held by the petitioner were deleted from their licences. 9. The petitioner submitted that acting upon the said deletion effected on 30th November, 1992 the petitioner imported raw material required for its consumption the petitioners namely; rubber chemicals and filed two bills of entry for clearances. The petitioner further submitted that the value with regard to the said goods covered under the said bills of entry was Rs. 15,06,205/- CIF equivalent to US $ 47,822. The petitioner stated that the bills of entry under which the goods were imported were covered under its Import Licence which was bearing No. 0307729, dated 7th O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India. 13. On being notice, the respondents appeared and filed their affidavit-in-reply to the petition. The respondents were also given an opportunity to file additional affidavit clarifying as to under what circumstances the value restrictions were removed from the licence held by the petitioner. The respondent has also filed an additional affidavit of Ms. Shubhra, Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. It is specifically stated that the deletion of value restrictions from the licence was an inadvertent lapse on the part of the office of the DGFT, however, the act of import was in breach of Import Policy prevailing at the relevant time. Submissions : 14. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Mr. Shah tried to canvas that there can be no estoppel against law. Consideration : 16. Having heard rival parties, it is not in dispute that the action of the respondents has made the petitioner to believe that value restriction has been given goby by the DGFT. The petitioner appears to have acted upon the endorsement made in the licence deleting the value restrictions and made imports. The petitioner has thus acted to its own prejudice. No fault can be found with the imports made by the petitioner relying upon the endorsement made in the licence. The legal submission of Mr. Shah that there cannot be estoppel against law is well recognised. However, when the import is in accordance with the import licence issued to the petitioner, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
