9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1295X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period 2016 to 2017. DIL had, inter alia, imported and sold 1426 kgs of gold to BL and similarly 800 kgs gold were sold to Jurassic Refiners & Jewels Pvt Ltd. The consignments of gold were cleared by DIL as Nominated agency, under bond, claiming exemption under Notification No.57/2000 dt.08.05.2000. DIL is a Nominated agency for import of gold, silver, etc., in terms of DGFT Notification No.88/2008 dt.26.02.2009 r.w. para 4.34 of FTP. Both BL & JR had exported gold kadas under shipping bills and upon fulfilling the prescribed conditions, had claimed replenishment of gold under the 'replenishment scheme' from nominated agency - DIL. 2. As per the two Impugned Orders, customs duty has been demanded from DIL along with equal penalty under Sec 114A in respect of duty-free import of gold supplied to BL & JR and penalty has been imposed on BL and JR as well as on the partner/director of these firms viz., Mr. Rahul Gupta & Mr. Ashish Gupta. Penalty has also been imposed on Mr. Nirakar Chand, CEO of DIL. Penalties on the three customs appointed jewellery valuers has also been imposed. 3. As per CBEC Circular No.27/2016 dt.10.06.2016, the nominated agency - DIL was mandated to obtain (i) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication/ design for kadas. They had manufactured various sizes ranging between 40 gms to 80 gms as per the standard sizes. 4.3. The said job worker manufactured and issued jewellery to BL/JR under delivery challans. Delivery challans contained information such as ornaments weight, wastage, receipt challan reference, making charges, etc. 4.4. BL/JR exported the jewellery manufactured by the said job worker, under replenishment scheme and thereafter, obtained gold from DIL under replenishment scheme as per the FTP read with Notification No. 57/2000. At the time of filing the shipping bills, they had submitted provisional invoices to the customs based on the 'notional rate certificate' issued by DIL (as per para 4.81(c) of HBoP). The provisional invoice consisted of information such as (i) Particulars, (ii) Gross weight of jewellery, (iii) net weight with wastage, (iv) rate per gram, (v) Total value in USD, (vi) FOB in USD, (vii) Wastage, (viii) Making charges (+) value addition @ 2.05% and (ix) Weight in 99.5% purity terms. FOB value mentioned in the shipping bills was inclusive of freight. All the exports were made to the foreign buyer - M/s MN Khan Jewellers (FZE), Sharjah, UAE. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged that Mr. Rahul Gupta/Mr. Ashish Gupta, partner/director of BL/JR respectively, had admitted in his statement that they had not verified with the job worker as to whether the manufacturing of articles is by fully mechanized process or not. They have calculated the value addition not as per the formula given in the FTP, but by taking value of jewellery (+) value of wastage shown in the export invoice, on the gold rate as on the date of export, as provided by DIL, as the value of input. 4.8. BL also stated by their letter dt.17.06.2017 that they first raised provisional invoice at the time of export and final invoice was raised once replenishment gold was purchased against such export and the account was settled with the overseas buyer (remittance received) on the basis of final invoice. 4.9. It appeared to Revenue based on the statement of job worker, that the jewellery exported by BL/JR under the replenishment scheme, was not manufactured by fully mechanized process, rather semi- mechanized process. Hence the minimum value addition required is @ 3.5% as prescribed in Para 4.61(a) of HBP and not minimum value addition @ 2.00%, as declared by BL/JR. 4.10. BL/JR, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /remittance. As per the FTP, to avail facility under replenishment scheme, by accepting EP copy of shipping bill, customs invoice and bank letter regarding receipt of the amount. As per the FT policy, an exporter was required to export jewellery made out of locally procured gold and realize the export proceeds and thereafter, obtain duty-free gold under the replenishment scheme. It appeared that DIL had not verified the required parameters in the shipping bill and corresponding export invoices for issuance of duty-free gold under the scheme. 4.15. It further appeared that there was no written agreement for the job work between BL/JR and the Job worker. It was orally agreed for a rate of Rs.5/gm. Further, the exporters declared higher making charges in their export invoices. There was no specific design and size given to the job worker who was asked to manufacture standard size kadas. All the purchase orders from M/s MN Khan Jewellers (FZE), Sharjah to BL/JR were for handcrafted jewellery with no specification as to weight and size of kadas. Though the purchase order was placed for handcrafted jewellery, BL/JR declared the export goods as fully mechanized plain gold jewellery decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was available (domestic price at which BL/JR purchased gold from refiners located in DTA), Appellants adopted the notional value for arriving at value addition to avail undue benefits. The value as per notional rate certificate issued by DIL, reflected value of gold (import price) which was prevalent on the date of issue of certificate, which had no relation with the value of inputs used in the manufacture or export of goods. Thus, it appeared that BL/JR with intent to evade payment of duty on the replenishment gold, which they were clearly not entitled as per the FTP, mis-declared the description of goods, value addition achieved, value of wastage and filed shipping bill which appeared to be mis-declared. It further appeared that BL/JR were required to achieve a minimum value addition of 3.5% instead of 2.05% as claimed by them. It further appeared that as gold jewellery was exported in violation of conditions for replenishment scheme under FTP 2015-20, it further appeared to be covered under definition of 'prohibited goods' as per Sec 2(33) and hence, liable for confiscation in terms of Sec 113(d) & (i) of the Act. 4.19. It has been further alleged that DIL imported and supplie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the value in final invoice issued by the exporters, which had bearing on the value addition. But he failed to take any steps to verify the fulfilment of the conditions of the notification and circular read with FTP. It appeared that he connived with the exporters - BL/JR resulting in evasion of customs duty on the gold supplied by them and thus, appeared to be liable to penalty under Sec 114AA of the Act. 4.22. Mr. P. Bhawarilal Jain, Mr. Satyanarayana Sharma and Mr. B. Ramkumar Jain, the Government/authorized jewellery valuers, appeared to have wrongly, and without proper verification, certified the wastage details and the process of manufacture of jewellery in the certificates issued at the instance of the customs dept. to BL/JR. These persons admitted that they were only entitled to certify the purity and not other aspects. The said certificates were presented by BL/JR to mislead the customs and the nominated agency - DIL for availing duty-free gold against the shipping bills, by mis-declaring the rate and value addition. Therefore, it appeared that aforementioned three jewellery valuers knowingly abetted with BL/JR in wrongly availing duty-free gold under the replenishment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that adjudication beyond the period laid down in Section 28(9) would be a nullity in law. (e) Whether the Adjudicating Authority have rightly imposed penalty (i) of Rs.8,00,00,000/- under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 on M/s Bullionline LLP; (ii) of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on Shri Rahul Gupta, Partner of M/s Bullionline LLP, under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, each; Rs. 6 crore on Jurassic Refiners and Rs.70 Lakhs each u/s 114(iii) and 114AA on Mr. Ashish Gupta. (f) Further, in case of BL whether penalties have been rightly imposed as under:- S.No. Penalty imposed on Amount of penalty Penalty imposed under Section 1. Shri P. Bhawarilal Jain (Govt. Approved Jewellery Valuer) Rs.25,000/- Sec 114(iii) of the Customs Act 1962 Rs.25,000/- Sec 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 2. Shri Satyanarayana Sharma (Govt. Approved Jewellery Valuer) Rs.25,000/- Sec 114(iii) of the Customs Act 1962 Rs.20,000/- Sec 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 3. Shri B. Ramkumar Jain (Govt. Approved Jewellery Valuer) Rs.25,000/- Sec 114(iii) of the Customs Act 1962 (g) Similarly, in case of JR whether penalties have rightly been imposed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... do not tally (short fall) with quantity given to exporters, in advance procurement scheme. 10. In the instant case, DIL imported goods during the period 2016-17 and supplied by way of replenishment (post export) to M/s Bullion Line LLP (BL) and to M/s Jurassic Refiners Pvt. Ltd. (JR). 11. The exemption notification (as amended till December 2016) is reproduced below:- Notification No. 57/2000-Customs In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, (52 of 1962), and in super- session of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 144/93-Cus. dated the 28th June, 1993 [G.S.R. 480(E) dated the 28th June, 1996] except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such super-session, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts silver, gold and platinum, falling under heading Nos. 71.06, 71.08 and 71.10 respectively of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), when imported into India.- A. as replenishment under the Scheme for 'Export through Exhibitions/Export promotion Tours/Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 2009 as amended from time to time, issued by Director General of Foreign Trade.-, Explanation-for the purpose of this notification,- (a) "Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020" means the Foreign Trade Policy, 20152020, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and industry published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part - II, Section 3, Sub section (II) vide notification No. 01/2015-2020, dated the 1st April, 2015, as amended from time to time; (b) "Handbook of Procedures, Volume-1" means the Handbook of Procedure, Volume-1, notified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce and industry published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part - I, Section 1 vide Public NoticeNo. 01/2015-2020dated the 1st April, 2015, as amended from time to time; (c) "Nominated Agencies" means,- (1) Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation Limited (MMTC); (2) Handcraft and Handloom Export Corporation (HHEC); (3) State Trading Corporation (STC); (4) Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. (PEC); (5) STCL Ltd; (6) MSTC Ltd; (7) Diamond India Ltd (DIL); (8) Four star export house from Gems & Jewellery sector and Fiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also include interest paid in free foreign exchange to foreign supplier. 4.39 Wastage Norms- Wastage or manufacturing loss for gold / silver / platinum jewellery shall be admissible as per paragraph 4.60 of Handbook of Procedures." 14. Relevant provisions of Hand Book of Procedures 2015-20 related to Gems & Jewellery sector are as under: "2.57 Interpretation of Policy (a) The decision of DGFT shall be 'final and binding' on all matters relating to interpretation of Policy, or provision in Handbook of Procedures, Appendices and Aayat Niryat Forms or classification of any item for import / export in the ITC (HS). 4.60 Wastage Norms Maximum wastage or manufacturing loss on gold/silver/ platinum jewellery and articles thereof is as follows: SNo Items of export Percentage of wastage by weight with reference to Gold/Platinum/Silver Content in export item Gold/ Platinum Silver a) Plain jewellery, articles, and ornaments like Mangalsutra containing gold and black beads/ imitation stones, cubic zirconia diamonds, precious, semi-precious stones. 2.5 % 3.2 % b) Studded jewellery and articles thereof 5.0 % 5.0 % c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufacture and weight/ value of any other precious metal used for alloying gold/silver. 4.67 Conditions of Exports Exports shall be allowed by customs authorities provided endorsement made on shipping bill and invoice are correct and value addition achieved is not below minimum prescribed in FTP. 4.68 Proof of Exports (a) Exporter has to furnish the proof of exports, wherever required for export of gold / silver / platinum jewellery and articles thereof, by furnishing following documents: (i) E.P copy of the shipping bill; (ii) Customs attested invoice; (iii) Bank certificate/e-BRC of realisation in Appendix 2U. ........................ (d) Instructions issued by Customs Department in this regard should be followed mutatis mutandis. 4.81 Export against supply by Nominated Agencies Exporter may obtain gold/silver/ platinum on following basis: (i) Replenishment basis after completion of exports; (ii) Outright purchase basis in advance; (iii) Loan basis. 4.82 of HBoP: Replenishment Basis&nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be that of duty free gold. c) Office Memorandum DGEP/G&J/06/2017/904 of September 2019: Interpretation of DGFT is final regarding FTP. d) Clarification dated 13.11.2020 of DGFT that duty free gold refers to the gold given by nominated agency to exporter. e) Clarification DGEP/G&J/06/2017/1344 dt.03.02.2020 about finalisation of Bonds under Notification 57/2000 -Customs dated 20.05.2020- reg, Wherein it was made clear that even in case of non -achievement of target value, the duty has to be sought pro-rata, from nominated agency while cancelling bonds. 16. Assailing the Impugned Order, the Ld. Counsel(s) for Appellant BL/JR/DIL submitted as under: 16.1. M/s BL/JR had exported jewellery out of domestic stock and was replenished inputs, i.e., gold, by the Nominated Agency - DIL, who is designated to import gold for replenishment to exporters. The exports under replenishment is subject to meeting minimum value addition norms (Supra) and all endorsements including value addition, etc. are required to be checked by customs officer before allowing such exports. The power to check these endorsements at the time of exports, in terms of Para 4.66 and 4.67 of HBP, has been given to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be assessed as per Para 4.38 of FTP 2015-20 (subject to minimum value addition as prescribed in Para 4.61 of HBP 2015-20) read with Para 4.82(c) of HBP 2015-2020 (i.e., Price should be actual price at which gold/silver/platinum was purchased by the nominated agencies plus permitted service charges levied by nominated agencies, should be included with the price of gold/silver/platinum for value addition). The clear provision of procedure laid in HBP, does not warrant any different view other than literal interpretation. The domestic gold price or domestic gold prices less excise duty borne, would always include 'customs duty' as well as value added taxes. In the relevant times, the customs duty was 10% and value added tax was 1%, further, not all gold was subject to excise duty. Thereby, value addition calculation method adoted by Adjudicating Authority in impugned order under challenge, that value would always include customs duty and as well VAT, leading to export of taxes, is wholly misconceived. Also such method of calculation as laid down by Adjudicating Authority is in conflict with the objective as laid down in Para 4.00 of FTP and is also in absolute contravention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : "50. Entry of goods for exportation.- (1) The exporter of any goods shall make entry thereof by presenting to the proper officer in the case of goods to be exported in a vessel or aircraft, a shipping bill, and in the case of goods to be exported by land, a bill of export in the prescribed form. (2) The exporter of any goods, while presenting a shipping bill or bill of export, shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents. 51. Clearance of goods for exportation.-Where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for export are not prohibited goods and the exporter has paid the duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under this Act in respect of the same, the proper officer may make an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation." Thus, the assessment for the purpose of exports under the export promotion scheme was done by the proper officer of customs and not self assessed. Such orders of assessment (appealable) have not been challenged by department in appeal. Thus the said assessment orders have attained finality and cannot be cancelled or modified under colourabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t made and signed by a person before any gazetted officer of customs during the course of any inquiry or proceeding under this Act shall be relevant, for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains, - (a) when the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the court considers unreasonable; or (b) when the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the court and the court is of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interests of justice. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceeding under this Act, other than a proceeding before a court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a court." 16.15. Customs Notification No. 57/2000 is issued u/s 25 of Customs Act, which provides outright exemption of customs dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ongfully claimed replenishment and that they have done misdeclaration qua the manufacturing process as "Fully Mechanised" and Value Addition at "2.05%". The Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that the Appellant M/s BL/JR should have achieved minimum Value Addition of "3.5 %", the process being semi mechanised". 18. That DIL has stopped the replenishment of goods to M/s BL (for two Shipping Bills), which may be found to be incorrect, due to present proceedings. 19. The Appellants M/s BL/JR have provided a certificate from a Chartered Engineer, to prove that the manufacturing process as detailed by the Job worker - M/s Ghanshyamdas Jewellers, is "Fully Mechanised", which has been mechanically rejected by the Adjudicating Authority, holding it to be incomplete and inadequate. 20. The adjudicating authority has held that the process of manufacture was not "Fully Mechanised" and was instead "semi-mechanized". The Adjudicating authority has misconceived between mechanised and automation. Adjudicating Authority has simply accepted the views of the investigating agency, that the process involving movement of material from one machine to another by human intervention, makes the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e foreign buyer. The goods exported were Plain Gold Kadas which has not been disputed by the Department and the only dispute is about the manufacturing process, which has been clarified as above. 24. The Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) is the Authority to decide on its scheme and accordingly, it is imperative on the Customs to refer and act according to the DGFT, and not to make rule or their own methods. The DGFT has given the formula for calculation of the Value Addition in Para 4.61 of the HBP and also given the values to be taken in the said formula, further in present case nominated agency approached DGFT for clarification regarding input cost, and DGFT clarified the same as - duty free value. The Adjudicating Authority has used his logic, over and above such clarification and also disregarded the DGEP office memorandum, mandating that DGFT clarification to be binding. For any interpretation issue, DGFT is the final authority as per clause 2.57 of FTP. 25. At the very first instance the Department should have approached the DGFT to seek clarification on the method of calculation of Value Addition and the values to be taken thereunder, however it failed to do so. Eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no need to allow examination of the case file of the department. Since copies of all RUDs were furnished to BL/JR and the OIO has not relied upon any material other than the same, the argument that there has been non-observance of principles of natural justice is without any substance whatsoever. 28. The second ground relates to request for examination/cross-examination of some persons including co-noticees like valuers and departmental officers, who had allowed the subject export clearances. The Appellant gave the following list of persons: 1) Mr. Harish Chand Agarwal, Proprietor of Ghanshyamdas Jewellery; 2) Mr. Nirakar Chand, CEO - DIL; 3) Mr. Satyanarayana Sharma, Government Approved Jewellery Valuer; 4) Mr. P. Bhawarilal Jain, Government Approved Jewellery Valuer; 5) Mr. B. Ramkumar Jain, Government Approved Jewellery Valuer; 6) Mr. Mohammed Nayeemuddin, Managing Partner - Viva Custom Cargo Clearing Agent. 7) All the Custom Superintendent who gave out of charge of exports. 8) All the Assistant Commissioner handling exports shed. 29. The Adjudicating Authority correctly held that out of the aforementioned, four persons, viz., (i) Mr. Nirakar Chand, (ii) Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards wastage and process of manufacture, as they have not been authorized to certify the same. Further, they stated that deposition holds good with respect to all certificates issued by them to BL/JR. However, on insistence by BL/JR, cross-examination was granted of the three jewellery valuers. Mr. P. Bhawarilal Jain instead of appearing for cross-examination submitted letter dt.10.02.2020 and averred that he will submit written letter in lieu of attending Hearing without mentioning any reason for not attending scheduled Hearing on 11.02.2020. 30. Cross-examination was again fixed on 11.03.2020, Mr. P. Bhawarilal Jain, vide letter dt.15.03.2020, denied the contents of the statement recorded during the investigation, stating that it was prepared by customs officers without any supporting evidence. Further, submitted that there is no document relied in the proceedings, which had been issued by him, for cross-examining him. Further, stated that being of old age and unwell, he will not be able to attend Hearing in person and accordingly, requested to waive the cross-examination. Similarly, Mr. B. Ramkumar Jain also denied the contents of the statement as having been prepared with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellants - BL/JR that they will file their final reply only after completion of cross-examination of all the witnesses, as proposed, was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. Further, regarding the admissibility of statement of Mr. Rahul Gupta and Mr. Ashish Gupta, it is not disputed that they had not retracted their statements and also they have not stated under duress or coercion. Accordingly, their statements are fully reliable. 35. Further, the contention of BL/JR that process of manufacture of kadas was fully mechanized is erroneous and not correct. Accordingly, prays for dismissing the Appeals. 36. Heard both sides and perused the records. 37. Having considered the rival contentions and perusal of the records, we record our findings as follows. 37.1. The Appellants have also relied on the judgment of Canon India in their Appeal memorandum in support of the contention that the SCN issued by the DRI is without jurisdiction (not maintainable at all), in view of the said judgment. However, in the course of final Hearing, they stated that they do not wish to press this argument and preferred to advance arguments on merit. This was also not contested by the Revenue and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uite different and not the same thing. Manufacturing with the use of machines means mechanised in trade parlance. Whereas, where manufacturing process or steps by different machines is connected by way of automation, reducing human interference, may be aided by artificial intelligence, amounts to automation. Accordingly, from the facts on record and the evidence recorded, it is evident that the jewellery in question which have been exported, was manufactured by the said job worker by fully mechanised process. The Govt. approved jewellery valuers, who are experts, have also certified so. Further, the said valuers have not stood by their statements recorded during investigation. The Chartered Engineer has also certified the process as fully mechanized. Therefore, the value addition here would be 2% and not 3.5% as held in OIO. 37.4. Now we take up the issue of value addition. We find that value of input in the formula, as aforementioned, was required to be taken as the value of imported gold (without adding any duty) plus the service charges levied by the Nominated agency. Para 4.82 of HBP deals with the procedure in case of export on replenishment basis. The exporter is required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after issue of OIO in relation to clarification with regard to Policy Circular No. 28 dt.27.09.2019, since it does not bear any signature or it is not issued under the letter head of DGFT and this clarification was also not relied upon in the Appeal memorandum. In this regard, it is noticed that mail has come from Mr. Arun Kumar of Policy Cell-4, Head Quarters from Email ID "[email protected]" and it says that same has been issued with the approval of DGFT. It is also noticed that this mail has come in response to DIL's letter dt.09.10.2020. Since it is an official mail, it cannot be held as having no authority to clarify as indicated in the said mail. If Revenue had any doubt about genuineness of this mail, they could have cross-checked from the DGFT as regard bonafide of this mail. It is obvious that the original Circular dt.27.09.2019 also, in Para 3, has clarified that for the purpose of value addition, inputs in 'B' in Para 4.38 means 'the duty-free' (either on advance or replenishment basis). Therefore, it would be obvious that the term 'dutyfree' used here in conjunction with either on advance or replenishment basis, would obviously mean imported inputs or in other words, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jewellery using less quantum of gold, than declared or made by some other metal other than gold. Also, there is no allegation regarding purity of gold as declared. In view of the aforementioned facts and observations, we hold that the provisions of section 113(i) for confiscation are not attracted, there being no case of any misdeclaration. 37.11. So far the Appellant - DIL is concerned, as the Nominated agency, in terms of paragraph 4.78 of FTP, they were required to pay the duty on the precious metal imported, if it is proved to have been not exported in accordance with provisions under the scheme. Under the admitted facts, DIL have supplied gold under the replenishment scheme, and after the verification of the export promotion documents/shipping bill etc., have released the gold only after confirming realisation of the export proceeds by the exporter - duly certified by the bank. Further, under Notification No. 57/2000, duty can be demanded from the Nominated agency only in case the gold imported duty-free under bond is not re-exported under the export promotion scheme. We find that there is no violation of the said provisions of the notification read with the relevant circula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
