Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (11) TMI 469

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to take action under Section 11(2) for non-fulfilment of export obligation against the advance licence dated 22.12.1999. Hence, the allegation that the show cause notices were silent about the action proposed has no factual basis. - The contention that the Directors of the appellant company should not have been made liable also deserves no consideration since none of the Directors approached this Court. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - LPA 363/2016 & CM No. 21426/2016 - - - Dated:- 8-11-2016 - Ms. G. Rohini, CJ And Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Chandrachur Bhattacharya, Adv For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Narula and Ms. Vinita, Advocates JUDG .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as to why action should not be taken treating the petitioner as 100% defaulter in the fulfilment of export obligation followed by a similar show cause notices dated 19.05.2004 and 16.12.2004. The petitioner claims to have submitted its replies. 4. The respondent No.2 passed an order on 05.04.2010 holding that the licence had been mis-utilized and that the appellant had violated the provisions of the FTDR Act and imposing penalty of ₹ 3,46,30,500/- on the petitioner and the Directors in exercise of powers conferred under Section 11(2) read with Section 11(4) of FTDR Act, 1992. The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 15 of the FTDR Act was dismissed by the respondent No.1 by order dated 05.01.2015. The statutor .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... given sufficient opportunity to the appellant to produce the documents to establish the fulfilment of export obligation, the appeal was dismissed by the respondent No.1 by order dated 05.01.2015. The relevant paras of the said order may be reproduced for ready reference: 4. Thereafter, final personal hearing was granted on 27.08.2014 with directions to produce requisite documents to substantiate fulfillment of export obligation failing which case will be decided based on records available. Shri Satabdi Chakravarty, Sr. Accountants Officer appeared and again requested for one week s time to submit documents. A letter dated 03.09.2014 was received enclosing therewith photocopies of Advance Licence, DEEC Book import/export, copies of BRC .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ise. But the other basic document like Shipping Bills endorsed by Customs were not submitted. 6. I have examined the documents and gone through the facts of the case. The appellant was granted various opportunities of personal hearing as detailed in above paras to produce requisite evidence of fulfilment of export obligation but the appellant has failed to do so. From the documents (only photocopies) submitted by the firm with their letter dated 03.09.2014 and also with their appeal, it is observed that Part-2 of DEEC Book has been not logged by Customs. They have not been able to produce shipping bills showing authorization No/File No. Further, it is observed that appellant has not produced Duplicate/Bank Certificate copy of BRC. They .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... respondents to invoke Section 11(2) of FTDR Act, 1992. On a perusal of the show cause notices, we found that the petitioner was put on notice that it failed to submit the documents to prove the fulfilment of export obligation. It is also relevant to note that the show cause notice dated 01.12.2009 was in fact issued under Section 14 of the FTDR Act proposing to take action under Section 11(2) for non-fulfilment of export obligation against the advance licence dated 22.12.1999. Hence, the allegation that the show cause notices were silent about the action proposed has no factual basis. Therefore, the decisions cited on behalf of the appellant, i.e., Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs. Toyo Engineering India Ltd. (2006) 7 SCC 592; Commission .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates