9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... competent licencing authority under the Foreign Trade Policy. 2. Appellant placed an order for 20 metric tons, vide contract dated 13th December 2012, and the imports were cleared upon assessment of bill of entry no. 216022 dated 17th May 2013. It appears that this clearance had been improperly granted by customs authorities as the Government of India had, by notification dated 26th March 2013, notified NDPS (RCS) Order, 2013 which, in paragraph 11(1) read with Schedule C therein, permitted import of potassium permanganate only upon furnishing no objection certificate from the Narcotics Commissioner of India. 3. Appellant had utilised most of the imports when they were subjected to investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... warranted as a later consignment was cleared on production of no objection certificate. 5. Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. The appellant is a export oriented unit whose imports are not restricted by the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy to the extent that such goods are allowed to be imported for use in the list approved by the Development Commissioner. Doubtlessly, the goods under import are required to be accorded a certification by the Narcotics Commissioner of India before they can be cleared and appellant did not, then or later, secure the certificate. Their claim to be unaware of the law does not appear to be far-fetched as the requirement of certification was prescribed barel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant is ample evidence that no suspicion is attached to utilisation by the appellant. Appellant is a export oriented unit operating under bond and whose utilisation of imported material is subject to verification of records through the annual review. The intent of the certification could easily have been complied with by ascertainment from the prescribed records available with the appellant. Such an exercise has not been undertaken and it is reasonable to presume that, had there been any evidence of diversion, such evidence would have been adverted to in the investigations. 10. Appellant has been compliant with the legal requirement once they were made aware of the prescription. There is no allegation of misuse of material importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
