9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DGFT clarified that no such import licence was required. On that understanding, the goods in question were imported. It is not in dispute that the goods were cleared after they were classified under Heading 8528, in tune with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. C-Net Communication (I) Pvt. Ltd., [2007 (9) TMI 15 - Supreme court of India]. In these circumstances, the insistence of the Customs authorities that they should have their pound of flesh despite the fact that the culpability of the importer is not apparent, seems to this Court, an insistence on hyper technicalities with a view to asserting power. In effect what the Customs authorities are contending is that they do not agree with the issuance of li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... import in the present case was made during the period 17-7-1996 to 13-2-1997. Apparently, the importer did not possess the licence but had relied upon letter written to the Director General of Foreign Trade (for short DGFT) for clarification as to whether licence was required; the letter dated 11-2-1995 was relied upon for this purpose. More importantly, the DGFT s clarification of 22-2-1996 that the said goods are freely importable was also pressed into service. The matter was adjudicated at different stages and also remanded several times. 4. Eventually, the Commissioner by his order-in-original dated 9-5-2012 upheld the show cause notice issued to the importer concluding that since the importation was of prohibited goods, necessary a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n adjudicated. 6. In our view, 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 para 4.24 of the 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 has been issued specifically covering the goods imported, the bond and bank guarantee have to be released unconditional ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07 (216) E.L.T. 337 (S.C.). In these circumstances, the insistence of the Customs authorities that they should have their pound of flesh despite the fact that the culpability of the importer is not apparent, seems to this Court, an insistence on hyper technicalities with a view to asserting power. In effect what the Customs authorities are contending is that they do not agree with the issuance of licence by the DGFT which covered the said import, and that they could still treat the goods as invalidly brought in and take punitive action. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no question of law arises for consideration. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
