9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ulfilment of the export obligation was due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellants, confiscation is not sustainable and penalty is also required to be set aside along with interest as there is no provision for demand of interest under N/N. 160/92-Cus - we reduce the duty liability to the unfulfilled extent of export obligation namely 54% of the total duty demand and also set aside co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imps within a period of 5 years from the date of licence. Although export order period had already lapsed, the appellants had not obtained extension of the period from the DGFT. The appellants had exported only frozen shrimps and marine products of total F.O.B. value of USD 5,49,414 out of the total export obligation of USD 11,72,844. A show-cause notice was, therefore, issued to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obligation namely around 44% and setting aside demand of interest, confiscation and penalty. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the decisions of the Tribunal in Sajawat Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore [2007 (219) E.L.T. 246 (Tri.-Bang.)], Fal Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2008 (231) E.L.T. 524] and Femco Filters (P) Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand of interest under Notification No. 160/92-Cus. Following the ratio of the above decisions, we reduce the duty liability to the unfulfilled extent of export obligation namely 54% of the total duty demand and also set aside confiscation, interest and penalty and partly allow the appeal as above after setting aside the impugned order to the above extent. (Dictated and pronounced in open court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
