9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty which was the result of assessment or not. Therefore it cannot be said that this is a case where rate of duty is to be determined by interpreting a notification or tariff heading or any other matter. Similarly, the value of the goods is also determined and it is nobody’s case that here the assessing authority would be revising the value or would be considering concessional rate of duty, etc. There was no letter issued by Ministry of Commerce to the appellant for approaching the DGFT and one arm of the Government having advised the appellant to approach DGFT, it would be appropriate to at least wait for a decision by that authority. Therefore I consider that it would be in the interest of justice to give some more time to the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore matter may be heard. 4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. According to Section 129C(4), any Single Member is not competent to hear any cases where determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment is an issue. The question that arises is whether the issue involved in this case is relating to the rate of duty or valuation of goods. In this case, the appellant had imported capital goods under EPCG licence but failed to fulfill the export obligation as required in the Notification No.44/2002 Customs dated 19.4.2002. According to the Notification, the appellant imported capital goods by opting for the concessional scheme and executed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to be fulfilled has not been fulfilled by the appellant during the period within which it was required to be completed. The appellant s efforts to get this condition waived had not borne any fruit. The learned counsel submitted that the appellant was informed by the Ministry of Commerce vide letter dated 6.2.2013 F.No.6/244/2013/GRC that first they should approach the DGFT and the issue was earlier examined by Committee headed by the Additional DGFT. Thereafter the appellant approached the DGFT by writing a letter dated 23.3.2013. The learned counsel does know what has happened after the letter was written by the appellant to the DGFT on 23.3.2013 even though more than 10 months have lapsed since the date of that letter. Nevertheless, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
