9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FT and also Notification No. 30/97. The validity period of the licence was 20-10-2000 after first extension by the licensing authority. By that time, the appellants could not fulfil the export obligation amounting to Rs. 5,21,33,991/-. The DRI found duty free imported goods in the Calcutta plant of the appellants. Since the above goods had not been utilized within the validity period of the license, the DRI seized them. Proceedings were initiated against the appellants by issuing show cause notice dated 1-5-2002. The adjudicating authority held that the imported goods are not entitled for the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 30/97-Cus. and also the Advance Licence dated 20-10-98. The goods under detention valued at 6,11,767 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod. They applied for the second extension up to 20-10-2000. It appears that the second extension was not granted due to non-payment of composition fee of 5%. However within that period, the goods valued at Rs. 65,29,691/- were exported. In the meantime, the Government of India issued Public Notice No. 48 (RE-2001)/1997-2002, dated 7-11-2000 on the subject of extension with respect to Advance License for physical export. In the said Public Notice certain guidelines were given by DGFT authorities for extension of the export obligation period. In terms of Para 1 of the Public Notice, In respect of Advance License issued on or after 1-4-97, where the stipulated time period of 30 months for fulfilment of export obligation is over, where the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as passed on 30-9-2002. However from the record, we find that as on 11-12-2001, the total export made by the appellants comes to Rs. 1,55,47,697/-. The appellant was faced with a lot of problem in fulfilling the export obligation. Even the second extension has not been granted by the JDFT on account of non-payment of composition fee of Rs. 5,000/-. We do not find any evidence of contumacious conduct on the part of the appellants. Due to recession in the industry and also labour problem, they were not in a position to fulfil the export obligation in time. However, in terms of Public Notice No. 48/97-2002, dated 7-11-2002, the appellant was entitled to seek extension of export obligation period of six months from the date of Public Notice fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
