9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Foreign Trade (hereinafter referred to as DGFT, for short). As under the EPCG Scheme the cars had been imported by the petitioner no.1 at concessional/reduced rate of customs duty being a service provider, and subject to the condition that the service provider shall generate export obligation equal to/worth five or eight times, depending upon the Circulars issued from time to time, the CIF value of the capital goods on FOB basis within a period of eight years from issue of the licences. 2. The petitioner no.1 had at the time of customs clearance on reduced/concessional rate of duty had given bonds and bank guarantees of total value of Rs. 1.73 crores, as per the following details:- License No. Date of obtaining/ applying Bank Guarant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartment. 5. The petitioner no.1 has challenged the said show cause notices on the ground that DGFT had issued Circular no.7 dated 7th May, 2008 wherein it was postulated that the cars/vehicles imported under EPCG Scheme by the service provider should be registered as tourist vehicles if EODC has not been obtained by 30th June, 2008. But by further clarification dated 26th September, 2008, DGFT has specified that this condition was not applicable to those who have applied for EODC by 30th June, 2008 and they are therefore protected. It is further alleged that in 2004, the petitioner had faced enquiry conducted by Director of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI, for short) but no show cause notice was issued to the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent case, the conclusion would be that the respondents have been able to fulfil the obligation under EPCG license as pointed above, which was the very condition imposed in the said license by the DGFT. DGFT has redeemed the license and has taken the view that the respondents have fulfilled their export obligation. No doubt, the opinion of the DGFT would not be conclusive and any such certificate cannot press the power of the authority to reopen even a concluded matter it if is shown that the such conclusion was vitiated by fraud concealment of facts or misrepresentation or misdeclaration as held by the Apex Court in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 755. However, in the present case, the appellants have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... drawn on 4th May, 2010 as the respondent-Department of Customs had issued show cause notices dated 3rd May, 2010. It is submitted that the petitioner has been forced to repeatedly renew the bank guarantees worth Rs.1.73 crores and accordingly is suffering and is being harassed. Learned counsel for the Department of Customs has disputed and denied the said contentions and during the course of hearing has stated that the show cause notices would be adjudicated and decided within six weeks from the date on which copy of this Order is received by them. The statement made by the learned counsel for the Department of Customs is taken on record and it is directed that the two show cause notices dated 3rd May, 2010 should be adjudicated and decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
