9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1192X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export and based on misdeclaration contained in the shipping bills DGFT issued DEPB scrips wrongly. If it was felt so, it would have been appropriate that the customs authorities should have taken steps to get the DEPB scrips cancelled by making reference to the DGFT authorities who issued the scrips. Without taking any such action, to say that the DEPB scrips issued by competent authorities are invalid is not proper and legal. It is also not in dispute that the clarification were sought for by the department also and DGFT have clarified that the exports made by the appellants prior to 27.1.06 were eligible for benefit of DEPB under serial no 459B. In favour of assessee. - C/495 & 602 of 2008 - C/185-186/2011(PB) - Dated:- 21-4-2011 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.C/495/08 is as follows:- ORDER ((i) I hold that the imported goods valued at Rs.22,31,09,560/- are liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not available, I impose redemption fine of Rs.5,60,00,000/- (Rupees five crore and sixty lacs only) in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) I confirm demand of Customs Duty of Rs.1,11,55,478/- (Rupees one crore eleven lacs fifty five thousand four hundred and seventy eight only) paid by debits against inadmissible DEPB credits towards payment of Customs duty on import made by notice-I under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I demand interest under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 from noticee-I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nadmissible DEPB credits towards payment of Customs duty on imports made by notice-I under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) I demand interest under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 from noticee-I. (iv) I impose penalty of Rs.43,19,423/- (Rupees forty three lacs nineteen thousand four hundred and twenty three only) on Noticee-I under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) I hold that the goods exported under Shipping Bills as detailed in Annexure 'B' of SCN having total declared FOB value, Rs.6,73,28,573/- liable for confiscation under section 113 (i) of Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not available, I impose redemption fine of Rs.1,68,00,000/- (Rs.one crore sixty eight lacs only) in lieu of confiscation under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under serial no. 459B of the DEPB schedule. 5.4 He also submits that the customs authorities cannot question the validity of the DEPB licence. The interpretation on the scope of the DEPB licence is within the jurisdiction of the DGFT authorities only. In support of this contention, learned advocate relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pradip Polyfils Pvt.Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 2204 (173) ELT 3 (Bom.) and decision in the case of Economics Traders (Guj.) Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (130) ECR 0418 = 2006 (104) ECC 0418. 6. Learned SDR reiterating the findings and reasoning of the Commissioner, submits that the appellants have exported the paper declaring the products as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re unable to agree with the findings of the Commissioner in this regard. It is not the case of the department that DEPB scrips are forged ones and not issued by the competent DGFT authorities. It is the case of the department that there was misdeclaration at the time of the export and based on misdeclaration contained in the shipping bills DGFT issued DEPB scrips wrongly. If it was felt so, it would have been appropriate that the customs authorities should have taken steps to get the DEPB scrips cancelled by making reference to the DGFT authorities who issued the scrips. Without taking any such action, to say that the DEPB scrips issued by competent authorities are invalid is not proper and legal. It is also not in dispute that the clarific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icensing authorities specifically holding that the Petitioners are entitled to avail the benefit of the DEPB Scheme in respect of Polypropylene filter plates and accessories, the Customs authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the Petitioners on the ground that the Articles exported by the Petitioners were not covered under Chapter 39 ITC (HS) classification. Whether an item falls under Chapter 39 of ITC classification or not is for the licensing authorities to consider before issuing the licence. Even after the issuance of the licences, the licensing authorities have not taken any steps to declare that the said licences were wrongly issued. Once the licensing authorities have held that the export product is covered under t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
