9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Advance authorisation has been discharged by DGFT (licensing authority) as export obligation has been fulfilled by the appellant. As the appellant has discharged the export obligation, in that circumstance, it is not open for the Revenue to initiate proceedings against the appellant that they have not fulfilled the condition of the advance authorisation. The appellant has not violated any condition of the N/N. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004. As per the condition of said notification, the appellant shall not transfer or sale the imported goods. Admittedly, in this case, appellant has neither transferred nor sold the imported goods but the said goods were lost in an accident in transit. The appellant has discharged their export obli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lance of imported Cocoa Paste stock record. The said loss of Cocoa Paste was explained by surveyor. During the course of audit of the appellant, the appellant intimated to the department that 50MT of Cocoa Paste imported has been damaged in transit and the quantity lost stands written off and reduced from the material import record. The appellant purchased lost quantity of Coco Butter from the open market and exported the same for fulfilment of export obligation. While exporting locally procured Coco Butter, no benefit of rebate or duty draw back was claimed by the appellant. The said advance license was redeemed in terms of Para 4.26 of the HBP and the redemption letter dated 24.06.2011 along with no bond certificate was issued to the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant is before us. 3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the licensing authority has redeemed the advance authorisation under which the impugned goods were imported. As the export obligation against the said advance authorisation has been fulfilled and also submitted that once the DGFT has not questioned the veracity of the transaction, the Customs authority cannot refuse the exemption, on the allegation that there was any misrepresentation. In any case, if there was any misrepresentation, it was the licensing authority which has to take steps to cancel the license. To support his contention, he relied on the decision in the case of Titan Industries Limited vs. Addl. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2003 (158) ELT 437 (Mad.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and penalty were also rightly imposed on the appellant. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. We find that in this case, the facts not in dispute are that appellant was having advance authorisation and imported Cocoa Paste against the advance authorisation. It is also a fact that 50MT of Coco Butter was lost during transit from the port to their factory and the same has been intimated to the department but the lost quantity has been replaced by the appellant by purchasing the Cocoa Paste from the local market to fulfil their export obligation and appellant has not claimed any rebate or draw back in respect of the locally procured Coco Butter. It is also a fact on record that advance authorisation has been discharged by DGF ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e specifically states that the petitioner is entitled to import die steel as a material required for the manufacture of resultant products. The Apex Court in the case of Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs reported in 2003 (151) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.) has held that once an advance licence is issued and not questioned by the licensing authority, the Customs authorities cannot refuse exemption on an allegations that there was any misrepresentation. In the present case also, the licensing authorities have not found fault with the statement of the petitioner that the die steel is a material required in the manufacture of resultant product and have granted advance licence to the petitioner. Assuming that the licensing authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bank guarantee merely because the matter is under correspondence with the licensing authorities. 9 . For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the first respondent to release the bank guarantee. This order will not stand in the way of the appropriate authorities taking any appropriate action in accordance with law. In result, the bank guarantee may be released within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 6. We further take note of the fact that the appellant has not violated any condition of the Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004. As per the condition of said notification, the appellant shall not transfer or sale the imported goods. Admit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
