9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Member (J) Shri Hari Shankar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Vijay Kumar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.K. Das, Member (J)]. - Both the appeals are arising out a common order and therefore, both are being taken up together for disposal. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants imported 31 cars under a valid licence issued by the DFGT under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme. Out of that, 25 cars were released and thereafter the said cars were seized on the ground that the said cars were used in the open market in violation of conditions of licence. The matter was settled by the learned Settlement Commission at Mumbai and immunities from fine, penalty and prosecution w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of earlier 25 cars. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority rightly confiscated the balance 6 cars in order to avoid further misuse of the licence. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CC, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd., reported in 2003 (155) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.). 5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, we find that 6 cars are still lying with the Customs and no Bill of Entry was filed and the goods were not assessed under Exemption Notification. The cars were brought under valid EPCG licence issued by the DGFT, for use in rent-a-cab service. Notification No. 49/2000-Cus., dated 27-4-2000 permitted import of capital goods under valid EPCG licence issued by the DGFT subject to fulfil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation was conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. The importer did not turn up to release the goods and they were not traceable. The exporter moved writ application before the Hon'ble High Court for re-export. The Hon'ble High Court directed the Tribunal to decide the matter. The Tribunal allowed the re-export. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Tribunal. It has been observed that the actual party (i.e. importer) never came for ward, which gives rise to suspicion that the importer and exporter were same or they were active in collusion. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court that the licence, against which the import took place, was found to contain forgery. 7. We find that the facts of the pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
