9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods against these EPCG licences on an ex-bond basis from the warehouse without disclosing that their EPCG licences were valid. The matter apparently came to light when the appellant approached the DGFT for grant of EODC. It was observed that instead of indigenous procurement, the appellants made imports vide Bill of Entry No.3386290 dated 03.05.2011 and 3400925 dated 04.05.2011 against the subject authorization from Chennai port whereas no import could have been made as authorization has already been invalidated for direct import. Once this was found by the DGFT, the same was communicated to the Customs and the latter issued a proper show cause notice dated Nil.02.2014 proposing confiscation of the imported goods under Section 111 (o) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they would be supplying the imported goods either under In bond sales from Customs bonded warehouse or High sea sale basis to the appellant against the invalidation letter issued to the latter. Only on the basis of this intimation did DGFT issue the invalidation letter. ii) Again, when the goods were imported and bonded by M/s.Socomec UPS India Pvt. Ltd., release advice was arranged and EPCG authorization along with other documents including invalidation conditions were given to customs authorities. After due scrutiny of these documents only, the clearance was allowed by customs authorities. Therefore, the finding given by the original authority that only the appellants and M/s.Socomec UPS India Pvt. Ltd. are responsible for the contra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces cannot be allowed till the imported goods and the import licences are matched and found tallied and endorsements made. Evidently, as the Commissioner (Appeals) has pointed out that in page 5 of the impugned order, this was obviously an administrative oversight on the part of the department. However, having made such observation, Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the possibility of whether there could have been a similar oversight on the part of the importer also. On the other hand, he has concluded that the non-disclosure and categorical non-communication to the department by the appellant that their license is invalidated is an offence and not an oversight . We are unable to digest such a conclusion, especially when it is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
