9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion relating to export obligation in respect of goods imported without payment of customs duty under each advance license and the relaxations granted by DGFT subsequent to the impugned order have to be re-examined for confirming duty demands and deciding on penalty if any to be imposed. So we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine all the contentions including facts that are now being presented as also the legal contentions raised - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the first appellant. There is also a penalty of Rs.50 lakhs each on S/Shri A.V.S. Murali Mohan, Senior Manager (Commercial) and K. Nityananda Reddy, Managing Director of the Company. The three appellants have filed appeals, which are presently being decided. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that after the adjudication order was passed, in May' 08, there have been some changes in the status of export obligations under the twenty licenses. To start with, they point out that they are not contesting the demand of duty in respect of part of the materials imported under thirteen [twelve as listed in para 15 of impugned order (i.e. except item no.6) and item no.3 of para 16] ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of this matter. They submit that proceeding initiated by DRI has culminated in the impugned order. So, they point out that so long as the impugned order is not set aside they cannot get the necessary EODC from DGFT in respect of goods imported under these two advance licenses. So, the appellants request that the impugned order may be set aside, so that the matter can be considered by DGFT. He requests that in these cases, the matter as to what were the goods which were exported against these advance licenses as claimed by them should be examined with reference to documents available and finding made available to the DGFT, so that the policy-related decision for issue of Show Cause Notice can be taken by DGFT. 5. To sum up, the submis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel for the appellants also made submissions that imposition of redemption fine is not proper because the goods were not available for confiscation and the decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Western Components Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T.572 (Tri.-Del.) is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The learned counsel further contends that this is a case where no penalty should have been imposed. According to the learned counsel once duty along with interest is paid, no penalty can be imposed in this type of cases. 8. He has further submission that if at all any penalty is imposable, the penalty has been imposed without taking into account the genuine difficulties faced by the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
