9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 1140X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are as to who was the holder of license once they admittedly sold it on 14.06.2007. Hence, it was for the buyer of DFRC license to register at the port of export and then apply for Telegraphic Release Advice TRA, in terms of para 8 of the Public Notice No. 75/2000 dated 10.7.2000. The above facts when considered relied up on by the appellants, cumulatively suggest that as pointed out by the bench, it is nowhere seen as to the mischief played by the appellants insofar as the alleged change that was alleged by the revenue. Hence, when the role of these appellants itself are not clear, saddling them with penalty is not in accordance with law. The impugned orders is set aside - deletion of penalty imposed on the appellants - appeal allowed. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they also appear to have found that the export item was dyed and printed polyester fabrics of GSM 242+/ -10% and item permitted for import was polyester, man-made, dyed, and bleached fabrics of the same GSM. It also appears that even in terms of the copy of DFRC received from DFRC registration section also, the import item was polyester, man-made, dyed and bleached fabrics of same GSM and thus, the revenue was of the view that the description of export and import items in respect of the DFRC in question were changed only at the time of registration of DFRC. 4. Consequently, a Show cause notice was issued to these appellants as to why penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be imposed on them. It appears that some o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... masterminded and executed the plot of forging / manipulating / tampering of DFRCs by purchasing unregistered transferable DFRCs in the open market and thereafter, applying for Release Advices based on the forged/manipulated/pampered DFRCs and selling the subject forged /manipulated / tempered DFRCs along with Release Advices taken by them to various importers using Tuticorin port. 9. It was therefore concluded against the 1st appellant that it had failed to register the subject DFRC before its transfer, which paved way for the above persons buying such DFRC to manipulate the same before its registration and therefore they were liable to be penalised under section 112(a) ibid. 10. During the course of arguments, the appellants have relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 10.7.2000. 12. The above facts when considered in the light of the above final orders of this very bench relied up on by the appellants, cumulatively suggest that as pointed out by the bench, it is nowhere seen as to the mischief played by the appellants insofar as the alleged change that was alleged by the revenue. Hence, we are of the view that when the role of these appellants itself are not clear, saddling them with penalty is not in accordance with law. 13. Resultantly, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals filed by the importer/appellants, thereby deleting the penalty imposed on the appellants. Appeal Nos. C/42871 to 42873/2014 and C/40266, 40271 and 40272/2015 filed by the Department 14. The disputed demands in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
