Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (5) TMI 271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the ITC (HS) hand book vol. 1 and Handbook (Vol.2), the said question or doubt shall be referred to the DGFT whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. Thus irrespective of the merits of the department’s view point, once the import licence has been issued by DGFT specifically covering the goods imported by the appellant, the customs department cannot challenge the DGFT’s power to issue the licence and hold the licence as invalid, as Exim Policy specifically provides that the goods already shipped or arrived in advance but not cleared from the customs, may also be cleared against import licence issued subsequently. In this case, the goods had been allowed to be cleared against ITC bond and bank guarantee and once import licence .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... classifiable under Heading No.8529, the department classified these goods under heading 8528 and not only charged duty on that basis, but also asked for import licence, as according to the department, in the foreign trade policy during the period of dispute, the goods falling under heading no.8528, which covered reception apparatus for television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus; video monitors and video recording or reproducing apparatus ware the items restricted for import and required import licence. The appellant, however, paid the duty on the goods under Heading No.8528 and cleared the goods against ITC bond for cumulative amount of Rs.6,46,73,366/- backed by a bank guar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liable for confiscation. By this order, the Commissioner once again confirmed the previous order dated 31.07.98. In second round of appeal before the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide order-in-appeal dated 4.10.2000 again remanded the matter with directions to consider the appellant s plea that in view of the Tribunals judgment in the case of C. Net Communications reported in 2004 (170) ELT 446 (Tribunal), the goods are correctly classifiable under 8529.90 and hence, no import licence would be required. The matter was adjudicated de novo once again for third time vide order-in-original dated 30.11.2007/3.12.2007 by which the Commissioner holding that the Tribunals order in case of C. Net Communications has been reversed by the Apex Court vide j .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in view of the specific import licence having been issued by the DGFT covering the imports, the confiscation would no longer be sustainable. However, the Commissioner vide order dated 9.5.2012 once again held the import to be unauthorized and ordered confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs.20 Lakhs. He also appropriated the sum of Rs.2.20 crores which was the amount recovered by the department by way of encashment of the bank guarantee. Commissioner in this order held that DGFT has no powers to issue import licence to validate as imports made in past and as such, the import licence is invalid. Against this order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 1.2. In the order dated 30.11.2007/3.12.2007, the Commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner and emphasized that the DGFT has no powers to issue import licence for the goods already imports and as such, the import licence dated 13.3.2000 produced by the DGFT is invalid. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. In this case, the appellant prior to making the import of the goods, in question, had sought clarification from DGFT on the point as to whether these goods are freely importable. It is not disputed that in response to the appellants query, the DGFT vide letter dated 11.2.95 had clarified that the decoders of model CDE 2002 DMAC are covered by Sl.No.27 of the IP Circular dated 5.8.92 and are freely importable. Though in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates