9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (5) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed against the order of a learned Single Judge. 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : 4. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants under Section 4L of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (in short the Act ) for action under Section 4-I and under clause 10 for action under clause 8 of the Import (Control) Order, 1955 (in short Control Order ) read with Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development Regulation) Act, 1992 (in short Foreign Trade Act ) for not exporting the goods as also utilizing the imported goods and failure to export within the stipulated time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the Delhi High Court. The writ petition was numbered as CWP. 623 of 1998. By judgment and order dated 30-5-2003 [2004 (171) E.L.T. 163 (Del.)] learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no ground to interfere with the orders of the adjudicating authority as well as the Appellate Committee. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed which as noted above was dismissed by a Division Bench. 5. Stand of the appellants is that what was really alleged related to a technical non-compliance of an export obligation. Such a compliance cannot be expected and demanded as the same was impossible to be done on the basis of quantity of raw materials that the appellants were allowed to import under the concerned licence. 6. Learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation period; the bond/LUT agreement condition shall be enforced and the licencee shall be liable to the different follow up, penal actions prescribed in the Import Export Police and Handbook of procedure 1992-93. The licensee shall also pay without demur to the customs authorities the concerned duty on the proportionate quantity of goods corresponding to the products not exported. Any shortfall will also be liable to adjustment from any application for licence pending in this office or received in future. (5) The action in clause 4 shall be without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the licencee under the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947 and Import (Control) Order dated 7-10-1955 as amended. 3. In terms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other extension which was rejected by RALC in its meeting held on 9-4-1993. As such the period of export obligation expired on 30-4-1993. Subsequently you approached this office advance licensing committee several times for extension in export obligation period against the subject advance licence but your request was rejected every time. You were also advised by this office on 29-11-94 to produce certain documents/information in r/o. advance licence in question. You sent your reply on 5-12-1994 and supplied this office photocopies of advance licences relating to earlier advance licences and other related documents but failed to produce the requisite documents in r/o the advance licence in question. However, you were again reminded on 2-2-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all also pay, without demur to the customs authorities, the concerned duty on the proportionate quantity of goods corresponding to the products not exported. Any shortfall will also be liable to adjustment from any application for licence pending in that office or received in future. (v) The action in clause (iv) shall be without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the licensee under the Import (Control) Order, 1955, as amended. 8. The Appellate Committee also analysed the position and concurred with the view expressed by the adjudicating authority. 9. We find that the authorities have analysed the factual position in detail and have concluded that there was infractions of the conditions imposed under the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Licensing Authority for grant of extension of six months to enable them to export the balance quantity by 30-4-1993. They again applied to the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Bombay Office for further extension. The same was rejected. Period of export obligation expired on 30-4-1993. Subsequently, the appellants approached DGFT office several times for extension of export obligation period which was rejected. Therefore, the plea that the conditions were incapable of compliance has been rightly turned down by the authorities and the High Court. 12. Finally, it was submitted that considering the value of the articles involved, imposition of penalty of ₹ 45 lakhs is extremely high. The minimum penalty provided is ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
