9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not submitted the required documents to demonstrate compliance with the export obligation. The Petitioner did not provide a written response to the stated objections but, through a communication dated 22nd September 2013, requested a personal hearing to explain the issues raised by the Appellate Authority. However, as noted in the order issued by the Appellate Authority, despite being granted several opportunities for a personal hearing and directed to submit the required export documents, the Petitioner failed to comply. Thus, it is evident that the Petitioner has failed to provide the necessary documents to demonstrate that the Customs Authority had agreed to convert the shipping bills from Drawback Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills. Furthermore, they have not submitted the required documents to prove fulfilment of the export obligation, nor have they paid the prescribed customs duty. Under these circumstances, the three orders rejecting the review petition cannot be deemed arbitrary, nor do they provide sufficient grounds for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 - no interference by this Court is warranted, as the reas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,765/-. 2.3. For seeking extension of the EOP, Petitioner submitted multiple applications dated 3rd October, 1996, 31st December, 1997, 18th June, 1998, 26th June, 1998, 26th September, 1999 along with request letters dated 01st October, 2003 and 07th November, 2005. However, the Petitioner s applications to regularize the exports were not considered by the Respondent. 2.4. Thereafter, Respondent No. 3 proceeded to issue show causes notices and demand letters dated 17th April, 2002, 25th May, 2005, 23rd January, 2006. In response, the Petitioner submitted their reply on 2nd May, 2002, 07th November, 2005, 22nd February, 2006 respectively. 2.5. During this time, Respondents issued two Public Notices dated 1st September, 1997 and 24th April, 1998 thereby granting extension in the EOP till 31st December, 2997 and then 30th September, 1998, respectively. Despite the extension provided, Respondent No. 3 did not regularize the total exports made by the Petitioner under the Advance License. 2.6. Respondent No. 2 issued public notice dated 6th April, 1999, for extending EOP in respect of EPCG and Advance Licenses in cases where export obligation has been fulfilled prior to 6th April, 1999, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bills, two bills are outside the EOP and Petitioner has also failed to submit custom dues towards the deficit of export obligation. Further, while the EOP was extended up to 31st December, 1997, Petitioner failed to submit the prescribed documents and is, therefore, liable to pay the penalty as prescribed. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 4. The Court has carefully considered the afore-noted contentions but remains unpersuaded by the Petitioner s arguments. It emerges that the Petitioner failed to submit the original shipping bills to substantiate the claimed exports, instead providing photocopies, which were not accepted for meeting the export obligation. Of the seven shipping bills for which photocopies were submitted, two fell outside the extended export obligation period, and two were Drawback Shipping Bills, for which the customs authority had rejected the conversion request. The Petitioner also claimed that the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate Book No. 10967 had been lost but was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for this before the Appellate or Reviewing Authority. Consequently, the Petitioner has not submitted the required documents to demonstrate compliance with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivastava, Addl. DGFT, Appellate Authority to clarify the above points and produce the relevant documents in support of your appeal. 3. The issues with approval of Addl. DGFT Sd/- (Munish Kumar) Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade 6. The Petitioner did not provide a written response to the stated objections but, through a communication dated 22nd September 2013, requested a personal hearing to explain the issues raised by the Appellate Authority. However, as noted in the order issued by the Appellate Authority, despite being granted several opportunities for a personal hearing and directed to submit the required export documents, the Petitioner failed to comply. These observations by the Appellate Authority are also reflected in the Order-in-Review, which reads to the following effect: 2.3 The Petitioner filed an appeal on 02.05.2012 before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority granted several opportunities of personal hearings to the Petitioner and also advised to submit prescribed export documents, but, the Petitioner failed to respond. The Appellate Authority observed that in some of the shipping bills, the date of export was outside the export obligation period and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawback shipping bills to DEEC vide letter No. 5/6-B-255/06 EXP dated 10.03.2006. The Petitioner has failed to produce any subsequent document showing that the Custom Authorities have agreed to convert the said shipping bills from DBK to DEEC bills. Thus the Petitioner has failed to produce the prescribed documents evidencing fulfillment of export and has not paid the prescribed Custom duty plus applicable interest to the full extent. 7. I, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me under Section 16 of the Act pass the following order: ORDER The Review Petition dated 25.11.2013 is rejected. Order-in-Appeal No. 11/20/2012-13/ECA-I dated 01.11.2013 and Order-in-original No. 29/96/192/0084/AM.06/JDG/MBD dated 30.03.2012 are upheld. The Petitioner is directed to pay the complete Custom duty plus applicable interest and regularize the Advance License No. P/K/1522804 dated 31.08.1994. Sd/- (Santosh Kumar Sarangi) Director General of Foreign Trade 7. In view of the above, it is evident that the Petitioner has failed to provide the necessary documents to demonstrate that the Customs Authority had agreed to convert the shipping bills from Drawback Shipping Bills to DEEC Shipping Bills. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
