9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts where export obligations have been fulfilled like in the instant case. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Para 4.28 of HBP are applicable to all advance authorization. It is seen that the entire foundation of the Revenue s case is based on Para 4.28(v) of HBP 2004-09 and Revenue is seeking apply the said provisions to the case where there is no default. Revenue has failed to notice Para 4.28 of HBP relates only to cases of bonafide default in fulfilling export obligation and it would naturally not apply to the cases where there is no default like in the instant case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - CUSTOMS Appeal No. 12844 of 2018 - A/12493/2019 - Dated:- 20-12-2019 - MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... norms allowed in Authorisation(s) and actual quantity imported against Authorisation(s) in the beginning of licensing year for all such Authorisations redeemed in preceding licensing year. In this verification process, in case it if found that Authorisation holder has consumed lesser quantity of inputs than imported, authorisation holder shall be liable to pay customs duty on unutilized value of imported material alongwith interest thereon as notified, or effect additional export within the EO period. However, for the customs duty component, the authorization holder has the option to furnish valid duty credit scrips issued under Chapter 3 of FTP and DEPB. In terms of aforesaid paragraph, Revenue is seeking demand duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93/2004-Cus and 96/2009-Cus has been violated and therefore, no demand of customs duty can be imposed. Learned Counsel also argued that there was no misdeclaration, therefore, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. He relied on the decision of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No. 271 of 2009. He argued that in such cases, even if there is any misdeclaration before DGFT, the customs cannot invoke extended period of limitation on that ground as there is no misdeclaration before the customs authorities. 4. Learned Authorised Representative relies on the impugned order. He argued that the imports were made after exports and therefore, appellant was aware of the actual consumption of the raw material. He relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovision is applicable only in cases of regularization of default and it cannot be applied straightaway to normal imports where export obligations have been fulfilled like in the instant case. Thus, it cannot be said that the provisions of Para 4.28 of HBP are applicable to all advance authorization. It is seen that the entire foundation of the Revenue s case is based on Para 4.28(v) of HBP 2004-09 and Revenue is seeking apply the said provisions to the case where there is no default. Therefore, we do not find any force in this argument of the Revenue. 6. Moreover, we find that the policy prescribed in Para 4.1.5, it is seen that it permits use of left-over material for manufacture goods and clear the same in domestic tariff a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the said provision tries to restrict the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. In our view, it only clarifies the position relating to SION. It is not practically possible to precisely point out the exact input-output required which would be applicable for all manufacturers. Moreover such norms are based upon the feed back from the Trade Association which would normally be in the worst scenario. Foreign Trade Policy does not state that licence holder can use the surplus raw material imported duty free for own use. On the contrary, Handbook clarifies that duty is to be paid or additional export obligation to be fulfilled. We also note that advance authorizati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
