9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch, the non-contracting party s cost/materials involved in the imported goods should not exceed 60% of the F.O.B. value of the goods - Ld. advocate has contended that the said Tariff notification has been amended by Notification No.68/2000 (NT), dated 10.11.2000, whereby, the percentage limit of 60% has been increased to 70%. Even the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, in the case of Director-General of Foreign Trade, New Delhi Vs M/s. Mustafa Traders [ 2016 (9) TMI 669 - KERALA HIGH COURT ] , has reiterated that DGFT had jurisdiction to issue notification under section 5 of the FTDR Act. Percentage content in respect of non-origin material - HELD THAT:- As per II (b)(3) of the Schedule to the Customs Notification No73/199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter D should have been mentioned in box 8 of the Country of Origin Certificate [COO]; whereas, the COO certificate submitted shows Origin Criteria as B 65.83%. Appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 upheld the order of original authority. Hence this appeal. 2. When the matter came up for hearing on behalf of the appellants, learned advocate Shri S. Murugappan made oral and written submissions, which can be broadly summarised as under:- (i) Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. S. Mira Commodities Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T.423 (Mad.) has held that fixing Tariff value at ₹ 35/- in the Foreign Trade Policy as not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000 (NT), dated 10.11.2000, whereby, the percentage limit of 60% has been increased to 70%. 4.3 Ld. advocate has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. S. Mira Commodities Pvt. Ltd., (supra) which had, inter alia, held that price fixing under FTDR Act is not sustainable. We find that the jurisdictional High Court has itself distinguished the ratio, earlier laid down in M/s. S. Mira Commodities Pvt. Ltd., (supra), in a subsequent judgment, in the case of M/s. HRB Boarding Lodging Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India reported in 2015 (322) E.L.T.452 (Mad.). The relevant portion of that judgment is reproduced as under:- 19. It is to be noted that the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but also as a delegatee under Section 6 of the FTDR Act. 20. In the present case, the DGFT has not resorted to change of categorization of items, i.e. from the category of free export to category of restricted export , but as a sequel to earlier notification No. 18, which fixed the floor price of US $ 50 per square meter, the present impugned Notification has been issued. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned notification in order to interfere with the same. The reliance placed upon M/s. Mira Commodities case and M/s. Bimal Kumar Modi case by the learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be made applicable to the present case inasmuch as in the said decisions, it has been held th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t:- The importer contended that the said non-Tariff notification has been amended by Customs Notification No.68/2000 (NT), dated 10.11.2000, whereby, the said percentage is made 70% instead of 60%. In this aspect, I find that the said amendment says that the said percentage is changed to 70% [non-contracting origin] for the product originating in least developed contracting States. As per SAPTA Agreement, Least Developed Countries are notified by United Nations and Bangladesh is one of the Least Developed Countries. However, I find that as per II (b)(3) of the Schedule to the Customs Notification No73/1995 (NT), dated 07.12.1995 when the importer is claiming Special Origin Criteria under para 10 of the said Schedule in the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
