9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LLO". Some of these clearances were made on payment of duty, for home consumption, while others were made for export under various schemes such as DEPB Scheme. The goods cleared either way carried the above brand name along with the legend "India" embossed thereon. The Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), New Delhi, upon an application of the appellants received on 1-9-2000, approved the above brand for the purpose of the benefits of Para 14.4 of EXIM Policy 1997-2002 as per Brand Approval Letter (BAL for short) dated 31-10-2000 which was received by the appellants on 4-11-2000. The BAL was issued on certain conditions including the following :- (i) The products, viz. rubber wheel made of mild steel and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms authorities had no jurisdiction to modify the DEPB credit allowed by DGFT. In this connection, reliance was placed on the Tribunal's decision in CC, Mumbai v. Garima Global Enterprises - 2004 (178) E.L.T. 809 (Tri.-Mumbai) and the High Court's decision in Pradip Polyfils Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 3 (Bom.). The counsel also pointed out that all the exports in question were made prior to the date on which the appellants received the BAL. He submitted that, in the circumstances, it was not reasonable on the part of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to insist on strict compliance with the conditions attached to the BAL. According to the learned counsel, the requirements for the benefit of Para 14.4 of EXIM Policy were substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGFT. It was for the DGFT which issued the Brand Approval Letter to the appellants, to verify the records and to find out whether any condition attached to the BAL had not been complied with. That the exports in question were made between 1-9-2000 (the date on which the exporter's application for brand approval was received by DGFT) and 3-11-2000 (the date on which Brand Approval Letter was received by the appellants) is another matter, pertinent though. Going by the ruling of the Hon'ble High Court, we hold that it was not open to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to sit in judgment over the quantum of DEPB credit allowed by DGFT under the licence in question. He could, at best, convey the results of his verification to the licensing auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
