9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and extension cables. The tender was accepted by RCF and by a purchase order dated 13th October, 1982, they agreed to purchase cables worth Rs. 17,49,000/- from the appellant. 4. In order to avail of customs duty exemption on the import of certain raw materials required in the manufacture of capital goods to be supplied to RCF, on 22nd November, 1982, the appellant applied to the Joint Chief Controller of Imports & Exports (for short `JCCI'), Bombay, for issuance of an import licence with duty exemption entitlement certificate etc. for import of raw materials free of duty or at a concessional rate of duty in terms of Import Policy Book for AM 83. According to the appellant, as they were not clear about the form on which they had to make the application, on the covering letter filed with the applications, with copies to the Advance Licensing Committee as well as to the Special Imprest Licensing Committee at New Delhi, a request was made to forward the said applications to the concerned cell so that an appropriate licence is issued for the aforesaid purpose. 5. On processing of the application, the office of JCCI, Bombay, vide their letter dated 30th November, 1982, called upon the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , and cleared the same without payment of duty in terms of the Bond. It is not in dispute that the appellant has utilised entire quantity of the imported raw materials in the manufacture of resultant products, valued at Rs.17,59,382/-; supplied to RCF in order to fulfil export obligation, as stipulated in the licence, against the export obligation of Rs.17,49,000/-. 7. Having thus, fulfilled the export obligation, the appellant approached the project authority, viz. RCF, for requisite endorsement on Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (for short 'DEEC'). Initially RCF declined to make the endorsement, on the ground that the Thal Project was financed by the Government of India and not by organizations like the World Bank, OECF, ADB, etc. as contemplated under the Exemption Notification No.210/82 dated 10th September, 1982. However, later on, RCF made the requisite endorsement on the DEEC book on 2nd February, 1988 to the effect that the appellant had supplied goods valued at Rs.17,59,382/- during the period from 27th July, 1983 to 10th May, 1984. 8. It appears that in the meanwhile, a show-cause notice dated 5/6th September, 1985, had been issued by the JCCI, Bombay, calling up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sought to recover customs duty amounting to Rs.3,71,614.82 from the appellant in respect of the raw materials imported and cleared without payment of duty under the Special Imprest Licence (SIL) dated 30th May, 1983. The proposed action was challenged by the appellant by preferring Writ Petition No.2038 of 1988. However, when the petition was taken up for final hearing on 21st October, 2002, counsel for the appellant volunteered to deposit the customs duty as demanded. Thereupon, counsel for the revenue made a statement that within two weeks of the deposit of the said amount, a proper show-cause notice shall be issued and the same would be adjudicated in accordance with law. The Writ Petition was, thus, disposed of on the same day. However, while disposing of the Writ Petition, it was ordered that appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 21st May, 1986 shall be disposed of within a period of six months. 12.The Appellate Committee, comprising of two Joint Director Generals of Foreign Trade, New Delhi, while observing that the second appeal filed by the appellant was not maintainable as in the current Hand Book of Procedure of Export-Import Policy, there was no provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort of their contention of having discharged export obligation notwithstanding that the imported goods were utilised for the execution of the project. The project they executed or supplied they made towards the execution of the RCF, Thal Project was not a project falling under the category of deemed exports. This project was not aided by IDA/IBRD. Their request for conversion of their supplies to RCF, Thal Project in the deemed category of exports was duly considered by the competent authority in the Import Trade Control Organization. Under letter dated 30.10.1985, their request was not considered as the supplies made by them to RCF, Thal Project were not covered under the category of deemed exports. They were advised to convert the special import licence into project import licence by paying the customs duty with penal interest thereon with the consent of Ministry of Finance. But they did not do so considering the fact that the appellants mis-understood the provisions of the policy in force and that there was no mala fides on their part, I am inclined to take a lenient view." 14. Being dissatisfied with order dated 22nd February, 2003, the appellant preferred a fresh Writ Petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (SIL). It is this part of the order which is impugned in the present appeal. 16. Mr. M.M. Kulkarni, a partner of the appellant-firm, sought permission to argue the case on behalf of the appellant on the ground that on account of several rounds of litigation, spanning over two decades, because of erroneous licence issued by the licensing authorities, the firm had closed down and, therefore, did not have the financial capacity to engage the services of a lawyer. We granted the permission and heard him at some length. 17. At this juncture, it will be relevant to note that during the course of hearing on 23rd January, 2008, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Director General of Foreign Trade fairly stated that in view of the aforenoted observations of the High Court, he would discuss the case with the officers of the concerned department and possibly the appellant might get some relief, particularly in the matters relating to 13 independent orders/import licences, confiscated/forfeited by the licensing authority by virtue of order of forfeiture dated 4th December, 1985. Further hearing in the matter was, thus, deferred. 18. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 31.3.08, it is to inform you that this claim was not originally included in the writ petition No.1174/03 field before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, which is a subject matter of SLP No.16917/2003 filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Even this claim is not supported by the required documents, therefore, your additional claim of CCS cannot be considered. Regarding payment of interest, it is hereby informed that the debarring order was in force and maintained by the Appellate Authority vide their Order dated 18.6.1992. It was in force upto 27.2.2008 i.e. till the date of Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in respect of SLP No.16917/2003. There was no delay at the part of the deptt. As such, no interest can be paid against the above claim." 19. It is clear from the afore-extracted communication that a substantial claim for CCS stands allowed and the balance claim of Rs.1,31,953/- has been disallowed for want of documentary evidence to show that the project was funded by bilateral or multilateral external assistance. It is pertinent to note that in the said letter there is no indication as to why in the first instance CCS claim for Rs.4,19,916/- had been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ids of justice and not the mistress of the justice. Ex debito justitiae, we must do justice to him. (Vide A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak). However, in the present case, although we feel that the appellant has suffered on account of confusion in the nature of the licence to be issued to it but appellant's main prayer for conversion of Special Imprest Licence into a Project Import Licence having been granted by the High Court, the wrong caused stands remedied to a large extent. 23. Having considered the matter in the light of the afore-noted subsequent intervening events, in particular the conversion of Special Imprest Licence into Project Import Licence, in terms of direction (b) by the High Court, we are of the opinion that insofar as CCS claim is concerned, no further relief can be granted to the appellant. In that view of the matter, the certificate, stated to have been now issued by RCF to the appellant, and annexed with the written submissions dated 3rd June, 2008, is of no avail to the appellant. Nevertheless, in our judgment, in view of the fact that the second Appellate Authority had reduced the period of debarment, pursuant to order dated 4th May, 1987 passed on account of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
