9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Customs authorities revealed that there were shortfalls in exports under both the licences. When queried about this, the importers admitted that they could not fulfil their export obligation under the first licence within the stipulated period due to cancellation of export order and that DGFT had also directed them to pay the duty foregone with interest. In respect of the second licence also, they admitted that they had not completed discharge of export obligation. Subsequently, they voluntarily paid an amount of Rs. 7,02,795/ - towards duty and interest thereon on the imports made under the first advance licence and an amount of Rs. 7,08,515/- towards duty and interest in respect of the imports made under the second licence. Later ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty with interest, in relation to the imports covered under the first licence has to be sustained and it is ordered accordingly. Though on the ground of breach of export obligation under the Notification, learned counsel conceded the liability of the goods for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, he resisted imposition of redemption fine on the ground that the goods were not physically available for redemption. In this connection, reliance was placed on the decision of this Bench in Associate Marketing Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai, 2006 (195) E.L.T. 287 (Tri.-Chennai), wherein it was held that, where the goods were not available for confiscation, they were not redeemable and hence there was no question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mports covered under the first licence. 3. As regards the imports covered under the second licence, learned counsel submitted that export obligation was completed albeit after expiry of the time limit allowed by the licensing authority. It was pointed out that, under Public Notice No. 35/1997-2002 dated 1-9-97., the belated exports were liable to be regularized by the licensing authority upon payment of a penalty by the appellants. It was submitted that, given an opportunity, the appellants would pay this penalty and obtain extension of export obligation period for the purpose of regularisation the exports already made under the second licence. After hearing learned SDR, who has not contested the eligibility of the appellants for the bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
