9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is that the licensing authority, namely Directorate General of Foreign Trade has even though initially through their letter dated 12.12.2006 disputed the fact of export of the said goods, but later on scrutiny and verification closed the case against the Applicants, and in support they have placed letters issued by the DGFT in respective Appeals. Also, both sides agree that the benefit out of the said export is yet to be availed by the Applicants, a fact not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, at this stage, we are of the view that confirmation of penalty against the Applicants may not sound well. Their involvement and violation of the provisions of Customs Act would be examined only after necessary confirmation received from DGFT by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Midi , against 10 shipping bills, 13 shipping bills and 10 shipping billings, relating to Appeal No.Cus.Ap.13/12, 192/12 and 193/12, respectively, by declaring its quantity and value. The said goods were exported for claiming benefit under DFIA Scheme announced in the Foreign Trade Policy(FTP). The Applicants later obtained the licenses from DGFT on the basis of the said exports. The Revenue disputed the export quantity and eligibility of the benefit, on the basis of the said exported quantity. It is the contention of the Ld.Advocate for the Appellant that the DGFT even though issued a letter dated 12.12.2006 on the possible mis-declaration and wrong availment of benefit of the DFIA Scheme by the Applicants, but later on being approached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... department has written to the DGFT for cancellation of license in July 2014, and no communication has so far been received from the DGFT on the said issue. 4. Heard both sides and perused the record. We find that the Applicant are claiming benefit under DFIA scheme on the basis of exports made by them against various shipping bills recorded as above. It is the contention of the Revenue that applying the norms, the quantity claimed to have been exported by the Applicants are incorrect. Hence, the benefit under DFIA Scheme cannot flow from the said exports. Whereas, the contention of the Applicants on the other hand is that the licensing authority, namely Directorate General of Foreign Trade has even though initially through their letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
