9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port of duty free gold for supply to be used to make jewellery for export out of country. The exemption available to such import is in terms of notification No.57/2000-Cus dated 8.5.2000 read with Export Import Policy applicable during the relevant time. The appellants have been regularly importing gold availing such provisions and were discharging their obligation in terms of notification, Policy and the bond executed by them. In certain cases, deficiency was found against the appellant for violation of provisions of policy and accordingly, instant proceedings were initiated against the appellant to enforce the bonds executed by them and to impose penalty. The proceedings concluded in various original orders. The original authority ordered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production of BRC as one of the condition to prove the export. Learned Counsel submitted that as can be seen from the details filed in the present dispute out of 6 imports, 5 are governed by pre-amended provision. The import governed by Bond dated 8.4.09 alone, if at all, will be governed by the amended provisions regarding production of BRC. They have produced such BRC in respect of such goods. 4. He also relied on the decision of Tribunal in Bank of Nova Scotia Vs. CCE [2009 (233) ELT 260 (Tri-Bang)] to submit that there is no authority with Customs to insist on BRC from the nominated agency for import of gold and based on such insistence, the exemption can not be denied to the nominated importer. The relevant portion of the decision is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and as a result of such collusion the sale proceeds were not realized. In other words, when the notification has not stipulated any condition to the effect that the nominated agency should ensure the realization of sale proceeds of the exported goods. We cannot read such a meaning into the said notification. Consequently, we do not hold that the first appellant has violated the conditions of the notification. Therefore, in our view the first appellant is not liable to pay the Customs duty demanded in the impugned order. Further, we reproduce Para (xiii) of Circular No.24/1998-Cus., dated 20-4-1998 : "Wherever such proof of export is not produced within the period prescribed in the EXIM Policy the Nominated Agencies, shall (without wai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m 1.4.2008 in the amended EXIM Policy which was later followed by the Circular dated 24.7.2008 of the Board. On such plain reading of the provisions, we are satisfied that the impugned order cannot ask for the compliance of the condition which was later on introduced in the Policy for the import / bond executed which was made earlier. We note that as per the submissions made by the learned advocate, the bond condition was never changed even after the amendment of Policy / circular. In such a situation, we find under no basis for enforcement of condition of bond to collect duty from the appellant. Accordingly, we find no legal justification in the impugned order enforcing the bond and also imposing penalty on the appellant. 8. In view of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
