9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 398X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Appellants were aware of the fact that the Licence was tampered and the status of the importer was changed to manufacturer/exporter - goods were cleared and after clearance of the goods, the same were handed over to the transporter as per instructions of the importer - omission pointed out by the Revenue for evasion of the duty, not make the Appellants liable for imposition of penalties un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce and subsequent disposal of the imported goods in violation of the conditions of the exemption Notification No. 31/97-Cus., dated 1-4-97. 2. The Appellant, M/s. Fairdeal Enterprise Pvt. Ltd. made a request to decide their Appeal on merits. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, M/s. P.C. Chakraborty and the learned S.D.R. for the Revenue. 3. Contention of the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through one Shri S.L. Sharma and bills of entry were filed and the goods were assessed by the proper officer and thereafter, the goods were handed over to the transporter as per instructions of the importer. The contention is that there is no evidence on record to show that the Appellants were in any way concerned with tampering of the Import Licence or in respect of diversion of the goods after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Duty being a manufacturer/exporter, whereas the Actual Licence was issued, as the merchant exporter and in such case the importer is liable to furnish a bank guarantee of 100% of the duty. The goods were not used for specified purpose and the Licence was subsequently cancelled by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. As the importer is not traceable and the Appellants had not made any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the local market, we find merits in the contentions of the Appellants. We further find that during investigation, summons were issued to the importer in the years, 1998 and 1999, whereas the import was made in 1997 and were received back with the postal remarks - left . This does not mean that the importer was a non-existent firm. The omission pointed out by the Revenue for evasion of the duty, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
