9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (12) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .00 lakh was dismissed. 2.The petitioners were granted advance licence No. P/K/1522472 dated 14th May, 1993 for import of 100 metric tonnes of brass scrap for a CIF value of Rs. 35.00 lakh (US 1,12,000) with a condition that they would export 92.500 metric tonnes of brass art wares for a FOB value of Rs. 70.00 lakh (US 224000) within a period of 12 months from the date of issuance of the licence. The licence was actual user licence and not transferable. 3.The petitioner failed to meet the export obligation within 12 months and could not fulfil the export obligation even during extended E.O. period which had expired on 15th February, 1996 entailing a show cause notice dated 1st October, 1996. The petitioner was also asked to submit all n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the personal hearing, an adjournment was prayed on account of the sickness of the petitioners' partner and so the personal hearing was adjourned to 13th February, 2002. In the meantime the petitioners again sent the statement and export accounts against Licence No. P/K/154472. 7.The learned counsel for petitioners contended that statement of export against License No. P/K/154472 was given by communication dated 9th February, 2002 which will reflect that there has been 100% export value wise. 8.The learned counsel for petitioners, however, admitted that according to the terms of the advance licence, petitioners had to export 92.500 metric tonnes of brass artwares and only 50% of the export obligation weight wise was met. The learned coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or recalling the order dated 11th March, 2005 which is termed by the petitioners as an ex parte order. 12.By communication dated 29th June, 2005, the petitioners were communicated that the appeal has been disposed of by order dated 11th March, 2005 and consequently, it is not feasible to grant personal hearing to the petitioners after the decision of the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also unable to show any valid reason as to why the petitioners failed to avail the opportunities on 10th December, 2004 and 10th February, 2005 as no one had appeared on behalf of petitioner company. 13.The appellate board had refused to grant further opportunity as the license was issued on 14th May, 1993 and had considered all the rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
