9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1396X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that licence number under which the goods were ex-bonded No. 0550002311 issued to the respondent for release Tariff Rate Quota for the year 2011-12. - If there was any mis-representation it was for the licencing authority to take steps on that behalf. We find that in the present case that there is not even iota on doubt that there was mis-representation on the part of the respondent. Similarly in the case of Autolight (India) Ltd.(2003 (4) TMI 119 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY), it was held by the Hon ble Mumbai High Court that custom authorities cannot be sit in pin over the decision of licencing authority. In view of the matter we find nothing miss and held that the licence without actual user stipulation is authority for the --- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the notice, actual user condition will not mandatory under import of all items under Tariff Rate Quota(TRQ) scheme. Revenue's appeal mainly on the ground that although the single member bench of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh order dated 23/1/2012 in Writ Petition No. 16349 of 2011 in the matter of Sriven Marketing held that the public notice dated 18/5/ 2011 is issued correctly, the division bench vide interim order dated 4/4/2012 in WAMP 447/2012 state operation of the single member bench. 2. Ld.A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue informed us that order of division bench of Hon'ble Andra Pradesh High Court in writ petition No. 228/2012 which had dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution and vacated earlier order of stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el Apex Court decision in the case of Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi[2003(151) ELT 254(S.C.)]. Lastly he stated that even if the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has recalled its order in the case of Sriven Marketing the licence will still remain valid. 4. Heard both sides and carefully considered the submissions. 5. In this case adjudicating authority denied benefit of exemption Notification to the goods imported before the issue of public notice dated 18/5/2011 which were ex-bonded after the issue of public notice. The public notice removed actual user condition in respect of subject goods. The exemption is sought under Sr No. 21 of Notification No. 21/2002. The exemption is available subject to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentation on the part of the respondent. Similarly in the case of Autolight (India) Ltd.(supra), it was held by the Honble Mumbai High Court that custom authorities cannot be sit in pin over the decision of licencing authority. In view of the matter we find nothing miss and held that the licence without actual user stipulation is authority for the --- by the clearance of the subject goods. 6. Ld. A.R. relied on the case of Darshan Oils Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in which it was held that import policy as prevalent at time of import is applicable. We find that DGFT vide Letter No. 01/93/180/102/AM 09/PC-2(B)/613 dated 21/9/2011 has clarified as under: " It is clarified that in terms of Para 2.26 of FTP 2009-14, the goods imported in March, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
