9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents to cause ascertainment requested for. All that was required to confirm the veracity of copies of the letters submitted by the appellant as having been issued by the DGFT. In case, once the fact of the permission for clubbing of advance authorization and regularization of export obligation has been approved by the DGFT, it only remains to rework the net duty liability and interest thereon, and, to ascertain whether such liability worked out are in sync with that paid by the appellant and appropriated in the impugned order. Sadly, that has not happened. Even at this stage, we find from the letter dt. 07.09.2017 that the Review Cell of Air Cargo Customs, Chennai has only transferred the responsibility to the Asst. Commissioner (DEEC) Group-7D of Chennai Seaport Customs. The end result is akin to the story of "Where Everybody Blames Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done". We also note that even in the nine hearings that have happened in this appeal in the last one year, for reasons we are not aware, three different ARs have appeared on behalf of the department - This is certainly not in keeping with the mission of National Litigation Policy which aims to transf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... priation of amount of ₹ 10,90,969/- and ₹ 5,44,482/- voluntarily paid by the appellant towards duty and interest liability respectively. In adjudication, vide the impugned order dt. 31.03.2015, the proposals of the SCN were confirmed. Redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed under Section 125 ibid in lieu of confiscation of the alleged excess goods and a penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The matter has been rolling on board from 2015. In a hearing on 05.10.2016, on the submission made by appellant that letter dt. 18.06.2015 issued by DGFT was required to be considered as confirmation of discharge of export obligation, Ld. D.R contended that at that point of time when the obligation was not discharged, the reason of issuance of that letter is not known to law. To resolve the dispute, this Bench vide Interim Order No.93/2016 dt. 05.10.2016 had requested the ld. Commissioner to get clarification by 30-11-2016 from the DGFT as to whether there was discharge of export obligation and acceptable to law. The matter was posted for 4.1.2017 when Revenue made prayer for adjournment to get instructions from the Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and interest with Customs and on collection of composition fees, the Office of JDGFT, on 19.05.2011 issued the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) after permitting clubbing of the Advance Authorisation. (v) The communication dated 19.05.2011 of the JDGFT was submitted to the learned Original Authority on 20.05.2011 and even though the Order-in-Original was passed on 30.05.2011, the authority has not considered the same. (vi) On appeal, the Hon ble CESTAT vide Final Order No.40117 dated 05.04.2013 directed the Original Authority to consider the communication dated 19.05.2011 of the JDGFT and pass appropriate order. (vii) The learned Original Authority, instead of causing verification with the JDGFT, inferred that the communication dated 19.05.2011 was not the EODC and confirmed the demand of duty, interest and imposed penalty. (vii) The appellants has brought it to the notice of the JDGFT that the Customs is not accepting the JDGFT communication dated 19.05.2011, as the proof of discharge of Export Obligation. In turn, the Office of the JDGFT vide their letter date 18.06.2015 confirmed their communication dated 19.05.2011 is the EODC. (viii) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been clubbed in terms of para 4.20.3 and regularized in terms of para 4.28 of Hand Book of Procedure (Vol-I) 2009-14. This letter along with Annexures thereto is found in pages 118 to 133 of the appeal book (in terms of advance licences Nos.0910011985 dt. 14.11.02, 0910014487 dt. 29.05.03, 0910015735, dt. 11.09.03, 0910017460, dt. 17.02.04, 0910018594, dt. 25.05.04). DGFT vide their letter dt.03.12.2010 (available at page 134 of appeal book) has informed the appellant that the export obligation against advance licences 0910010290 dt. 13.06.2002 has been regularized in terms of para 4.28 of Hand Book of Procedure (Vol-II) 2002-07. A corrigendum dt.25.2.2011 has been issued to the EOU regularization letter in respect of appellant to amend the name of customs authorities to be read as Dy./Asst. Commissioner of Customs, DEEC Section Air Caro Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 6.4 Further DGFT letter dt. 18.06.2015 found at page 136 of the appeal book clarifies that nature of clubbing and regularization of export obligation is already conveyed in their earlier letter dt. 19.05.2011. Relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below : 2. This is to inform you that vide this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity of copies of the letters submitted by the appellant as having been issued by the DGFT. In case, once the fact of the permission for clubbing of advance authorization and regularization of export obligation has been approved by the DGFT, it only remains to rework the net duty liability and interest thereon, and, to ascertain whether such liability worked out are in sync with that paid by the appellant and appropriated in the impugned order. Sadly, that has not happened. We are pained to note that there has been no progress in the matter. On the other hand, we find ourselves today on 05.10.2017, exactly at the same place where we started, a year ago to the day on 5.10.2016, on which date the interim order had been issued. 6.8 Even at this stage, we find from the letter dt. 07.09.2017 that the Review Cell of Air Cargo Customs, Chennai has only transferred the responsibility to the Asst. Commissioner (DEEC) Group-7D of Chennai Seaport Customs. The end result is akin to the story of Where Everybody Blames Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done . We also note that even in the nine hearings that have happened in this appeal in the last one year, for reasons we are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
