9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1413X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ECIAL CARGO, MUMBAI AND OTHERS VERSUS SHRI SAMIR VORA AND OTHERS [ 2015 (9) TMI 1370 - CESTAT MUMBAI] by holding that there was neither any mis-declaration of value /product nor there was circular trading. The CESTAT inter-alia held that all the transaction of Cut and Polished Diamonds (CPD) were genuine and there was no circular trading - the disputed matter is well settled in favour of the respondents by the above decision. Since the issue is no longer res integra, the instant demand cannot be sustained. In the present matter the department s appeal does not allege that the licences had been cancelled by the DGFT in the instant case. Clearly, the facts are on record that the DGFT has not cancelled the DFCE Licence issued to the respondent and same were valid in the eyes of law. The DGFT has still not cancelled or modified the DFCE licences already granted. So it is clear that DGFT does not agree with the contention of the department. The allegation of the revenue cannot be agreed that the exports have been misdeclared and DFCE licenses have been sought for and obtained fraudulently and imports have been made using invalid DFCE licenses. Conclusion - The contention of the departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the benefit of the Star Trading House/ Status Holders. As per this scheme, the exporters were entitled to credit of duty to the extent of 10% of the total incremental exports made by them in the year 2003-04, over their exports in 2002-03, provided the incremental growth was at least 25%. The said benefit was granted by way of DFCE licences for duty free import. CBIC vide Notification No. 53/2003-Cus dated 01.04.2003 exempted the goods from Duty when imported into India against Duty Free Credit Entitlement ( DFCE ) licences. Sensing large scale misuse of the above scheme, the DGFT made some amendments, vide various notifications. Being aggrieved by the above amendments Notifications, M/s AEL approached the Hon ble High Court of Gujarat and vide judgment dated 23.07.2004, partly allowed the petition filed by M/s AEL. Consequent to the above judgment, M/s AEL and others and also DGFT have filed appeals before the Hon ble Supreme Court. Among other appeals, the Supreme Courts has finally decided this issue vide Judgement dated 27.10.2015 in the case titled as Director General of Foreign Trade Vs. Kanak Exports and Others [2015(326)ELT (SC)]. Thus as per the revenue validity of ame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pose Penalties under the Act and proposed to enforce Bank Guarantee. In adjudication, Ld. Adjudicating authority vide impugned orders dropped the proceedings initiated against respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, revenue preferred these appeal. 2. Shri Girish Nair, Ld. Assistant Commissioner appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterated the grounds of appeals and submits that Ld. Adjudicating authority has erred in placing reliance on the Final Order No. A/2733-44/2015-WZB/CB dated 26.08.2015 passed by the Mumbai Tribunal, which has been upheld by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 22.07.2016. The said case was regarding Target Plus Scheme, whereas the present case is regarding mis-use of provisions of incremental Export Promotion Scheme under which Duty Free Credit Entitlement Licences have been issued subject to observance of applicable provisions and conditions. 2.1 He further submits that the DGFT on being brought to notice about the large scale misuse of the scheme promulgated Notifications clarifying about the disentitlement of exports of various goods for counting towards FOB entitlement under the Scheme. By Notification No. 28/(RE 2003/2002-2007 dated 28.01.2004 am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. -2016(342)ELT A50(SC) and further, review petition filed by revenue was also dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.03.2017. Since the show cause notice in the present case refers to the said earlier Notice dated 30.03.2007 which has attained finality in the Respondent s favour, the present appeal filed by revenue is also liable to be dismissed in terms of settled law that when foundation is removed superstructure falls. 3.1 He also submits that there is no circular trading, respondent has exported processed sorted CPD whereas the imported goods were unassorted CPD. Since, the goods undergone change due to processing like sieving, boiling, sorting etc., the exported goods are different from the goods alleged to be imported and therefore, the basic premise of circular trading fails. 3.2 He argued that the supplier and the buyer of CPD are different and distinct entities. Further, there is no allegation that there has been inter-se trading/transfer of CPD from one overseas entity to another. Therefore, the allegation of Circular trading is totally frivolous. Circular Trading means selling a commodity or security at one end and buying the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r management rights or shareholders agreement or voting agreements or in any other manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that M/s. PNJ Trading, Hong kong and M/s. Little Hearts Creations, Hong Kong were controlled by M/s AEL. 3.6 He also submits that M/s AEL has obtained licenses for bonded warehouse in which processing is also permitted as clarified by the CBEC vide circular No. 40/1999 dated 28.06.1999. M/s AEL undertook the process of boiling, sieving and sorting in the bonded warehouse in relation to the consignments of unassorted CPDs imported by the company and exported the processed assorted CPDs thereafter with value addition. Further, the allegation that the imported and exported goods were same or substantially the same, is incorrect, because the company has exported the goods duly processed in terms of Circular No. 40/1999 dtd. 28.06.1999 by achieving under the paragraphs 4.4.17 of the Policy. This aspect has been also confirmed by the proper officer during their cross examination in respect of earlier SCN dated 30.03.2007. 3.7 He also submits that the activities like boiling, sieving and sorting were carried out by the company and their payment has also been accounted fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips has not been cancelled by Licensing Authority. Therefore, it was confirmed that the company has not misrepresented before the DGFT/Licensing Authority for grant of DFCE Scrips. Thus, when the competent authority, i.e DGFT has given clean chit to the company then the customs authority has no jurisdiction to deny the benefit accrued to AEL. He placed reliance on the following decisions:- Tital Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, 2003 (151) ELT 254 (SC); Zuari Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. Customs, 2007 (210) ELT 648 (SC). Vadilal Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2005 (192) ELT 33 (SC) 3.13 On limitation he also submits that the entire demand is barred by limitation. The Customs authorities who have fully aware of the exports of CPD from the Bonded Warehouse and import of Gold and Silver bars against DECE scrips issued in relation to such exports. The respondent had received previous show cause notice in the year 2007 in relation to exports of CPD from Bonded warehouse during the year 2004-05 and 2005-06 and therefore, there is no suppression of facts or mis-statement by the respondent. Hence, duty demand is barred by limitation. He placed reliance on the foll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared in the shipping bills for export of cut and polished diamonds by appellant companies is liable to be rejected on the ground that no processing activity to achieve value addition of 5% or 10%, was undertaken by the Indian companies in the bonded warehouses? (II) Whether the Indian companies artificially inflated the export turnover to take benefit under the Target Plus Scheme (TPS) by resorting to circular trading/movement of the same set of diamonds between Indian companies and overseas entities which are allegedly inter related? (III) What is the effect of the Commissions paid by the Indian entities for exports and the arrangement of buyers credit by the Indian entities on either the FOB value declared in the shipping bills or on the charge of circular trading referred to above? (IV) Whether the export goods can be held liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Act and consequently whether the amounts of penalties imposed by the Commissioner are justified or are the same to be increased? 18 . We shall now deal with each of the above issues - Issue No. I A. There are two parts to this issue. We have to see whether, firstly, any processing activity at all was carried ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o quality required. (viii) Repacking of the assorted CPD for exports by the office staff. C. In the same statement, Lumesh Sanghavi has further stated as under : Qn.5 : Please state whether 3 activities, i.e., sieving, boiling and quality assessment were done in respect of all the lots? Also, explain each process in detail? Ans.5 : No, in all cases all the above said 3 steps are not followed, as in some cases boiling may not be warranted and in some cases quality assessment may not be essential. The process of boiling of CPD is basically required to clean the diamonds. It is not done in all cases. For carrying out the process of sieving, the diamonds have to be placed on different sizes of metal sheets having perforations/holes and when the diamonds are placed on said metal sheets they pass through the holes and diamonds of one particular size gets eliminated from the lot. Thus, diamonds of different size are assorted by the process of sieving. Sometimes, the quality is assessed for ascertaining the impurity and thereby value of the CPD. This process is also not carried out 100%. D. In his statement dated 28-2-2006, Lumesh Sanghavi once again deposed as under : On receipt of the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de the wrapper of plain white paper. On receipts of the parcel of diamonds we put it into the safe meant for the custody of diamonds in the office of Aditya Corpex Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, on the same day, Mr. Lumesh Sanghavi came to the office of Aditya Corpex Pvt. Ltd., he checked the parcel and packets contained in it. Thereafter, as per the requirement, Mr. Lumesh used to take out the packets of certain lots from the parcel of imported diamonds for sorting into various size, by the assorters, in the office of Aditya Corpex Pvt. Ltd. Sometimes, when Lumesh Sanghavi could not come to the office Aditya Corpex Pvt. Ltd., he used to tell me on phone to take out packets of certain lots from the parcels (Aluminum Box) of imported diamonds and give them for sorting. On being asked I state that assorters used to separate the size of the different lot of imported diamonds with the help sieve of different size, as per instruction of Lumesh Sanghavi and this activity was supervised by myself. Upon sorting the imported diamonds into different sizes, two to four lots of different size group were made from the one lot and these lots were packed separately in plastic bags which were weighed in ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 shows that it does not contain any condition, that the value addition must be as a result of any kind of manufacturing or specific processing activity in the bonded warehouse. In fact, it refers to import of cut and polished diamonds and to the export also of cut and polished diamonds. It is implied that para 4A.18 does not necessarily envisage any kind of manufacturing or processing activity to achieve value addition, because it does not refer to any new article at the time of export, different from the goods at the time of import. The sole objective is to earn foreign exchange by value addition, and subject to achieving this object, import and re-export out of bonded warehouse of the same item, namely; cut and polished diamonds is permitted. The ld. Senior Advocates submitted that there is no bar in achieving value addition to satisfy the condition of 4A.18 simply as a result of trading, i.e. buying and selling cut and polished diamonds from the bonded warehouse. While this may appear to be the intention because para 4A.18 does not prescribe any conditions as to how to achieve the value addition, we need not test the scope of para 4A.18 by this argument alone, having accepted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a homogenous lot based on their size and quality, the value shall change even by employing simple labour intensive processes like sieving, boiling and assorting. The only piece of evidence we find on the relationship between the value addition and the process is in the form of representation made by Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council vide letter dated 23-10-2006 which relies on the same Circular of the C.B.E. C. while dealing with the various schemes in the Policy affecting the business of gem and jewellery including diamond industry. We are informed that the Customs Officers in charge of the bonded warehouse on being satisfied, have also cancelled the bonds, which aspect has been completely overlooked by the Commissioner. 18.5 It is true that Lumesh Sanghavi has not been able to say which of these processes were carried out in respect of how many consignments of imported diamonds before export, which (we are informed) aggregate to about 3000 consignments or whether all the processes were carried out for all the consignments, except making a general statement on 7-2-2006 which has been referred to above. It is equally true that Lumesh Sanghavi in each of his statements men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with the determination of value addition. We are informed that the applications by the appellant companies under TPS are pending with the offices of Jt. DGFT. It will be for the licensing authority to determine the value addition at the appropriate stage. We are here concerned with the correctness of the FOB value as declared in the shipping bills which is within the jurisdiction of the Customs officer and for that the powers are derived from Section 14 of Act, which deals with determination of assessable value read with Section 17 of the Act which confer the power of assessment on consignments of exports, in respect of which shipping bills are filed under Section 50 of the Act. We shall first examine the law on this point. (a) In Frost International v. Commissioner, 2006 (206) E.L.T. 451 (Tri.) the selling price of the manufacturer of garments was taken to be the correct Present Market Value (PMV) and on that basis, the Commissioner rejected the higher FOB value declared by the exporter. This Tribunal held that the concept of PMV cannot be equated with the FOB value of the goods which represents the price in the international market. The same view was also taken in the second ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmation of the value by these Customs officers in our opinion is a clinching evidence and there is nothing in the show-cause notice to rebut this primary evidence as to the correctness of FOB value. At no stage of the assessment of thousands of consignments, exported by the appellant companies, was any doubt raised as to the truth or accuracy of the declared FOB value. The confirmation by the Customs officers, and the admission by the Commissioner that they verified inter alia the value of the goods, is direct evidence of the correctness of the value on physical examination of the goods. In these circumstances, we do not see how the Commissioner can reject the declared FOB value. 18.9 Yet the Commissioner did so. And the only reason for the Commissioner to do so is because neither the Customs officers who examined the goods nor the appellant companies have been able to show how simple process of boiling, sieving and assortment can result in value addition of 5% or more. This is a fundamental fallacy, which the order of the Commissioner suffers from in not maintaining the distinction between FOB value, which is required to be determined under Section 14 and various tests laid dow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Board of Directors. The relationship in the context of determination of FOB value is the relationship between the buyer and the seller in the course of international trade. Hence, the issue of inter se relationship between AEL and Indian companies is not relevant for the purposes of Section 14. The show cause notice dwells on this issue only to show that AEL connived with the 5 other Indian entities to take advantage of benefits under TPS by showing higher incremental exports to derive maximum benefit under TPS. We do not see the relevance of the issue in this case. At the risk of repetition, we hold that since the application for grant of duty free scrips made by the Indian companies including AEL for the year 2004-05 is pending before the Licensing authority, it is for the licensing authority to consider whether the export turnover of each individual Indian company is to be reckoned or whether export turnover of all Indian companies to be clubbed for the purposes of calculating the benefits under TPS. We say no more than this so as not to prejudice the disposal of the application pending before the licensing authority. We remind ourselves that there is a concept and definition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account. Common Directors or Directors who are employees of AEL or its subsidiaries also does not establish mutuality of interest. So also merely because Vinod Shantilal Shah is brother-in-law of the Chairman and Managing Director of AEL, it does not establish the relationship particularly when it is now shown that the Vinod Shantilal Shah is also Director in AEL or holds significant shares to exercise control over AEL and vice versa AEL has any shareholding or common Directors in GA International. Section 14 of the Act requires the interest of the buyer and the seller in the business of each other. There is no allegation of common shareholding except for the subsidiaries. It is also not shown that AEL has the power to appoint Directors or control the composition of Board of Directors of companies in which its employees or its Directors are also partners or Directors. It is not shown that AEL holds sufficient shares or voting power to control the decisions of the entities in which its Directors are also Directors or in which its employees are also Directors or Partners. Mutuality of interest must be proved both ways. It is interest in the business of each other which proves that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deposed to the contrary. We have independently also examined the evidence on record particularly Annexures H and I to the SCN and have found that the charge of the circular trading is not sustainable. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, this part of the statement of Lumesh Sanghvi cannot be seen as conclusive to the charge of, either over-valuation or circular trading. 18.16 In the above factual backdrop, we shall now deal with the case-law cited by the department. In the case of Omprakash Bhatia v. CC, 2003 (155) E.L.T. 423 (S.C.), the exporter did not lead any evidence to show that the export value mentioned in the shipping bill was the true sale consideration, and accepted the lower value ascertained on market inquiry even at the time of hearing, while giving up the claim of drawback. It is in these facts that the Court was called upon to decide whether Section 113(d) was applicable or not. In the instant case neither any market inquiry has been conducted, nor the appellant has accepted the value suggested by the department. 18.17 In CC v. Pankaj V. Sheth, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 31 (Cal.), the question was whether pending inquiry, the Court could direct the Customs Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mean that the special or peculiar knowledge of the person proceeded against will relieve the prosecution or the Department altogether of the burden of producing some evidence in respect of that fact in issue. It will only alleviate that burden to discharge which very slight evidence may suffice. 18.21 In the present case, we find that the department has failed in discharging the burden cast upon it to produce any tangible evidence in respect of the charge of over-valuation or circular trading. For the same reason, the judgment in Steel India Company v. CCE, 2014 (310) E.L.T. 184 (Tri.) is of no assistance to the department. 18.22 For reasons aforesaid, the declared FOB value is accepted to be the correct FOB value under Section 14 of the Act and to that extent the order of the Commissioner is set aside. 19. Issue No. II 19.1 The allegations relating to circular trading are essentially set out in paras 9.1 to 9.13 of the show cause notice. The Commissioner, as stated, did not confirm the allegation of circular trading and held that the defence to show that circular trading is not possible appears to be plausible. The department is aggrieved by this finding and has come in appeal. 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said to be involved in circular trading varied in weight and clarity. It however describes such variation to be marginal or slight variations. We are not impressed by the use of such adjectives particularly when the Commissioner also admits the value of each lot varies on account of variation in the 4 Cs. Whether such variation is marginal so as not to affect price is not for us to say. This perhaps required expert evidence who can only do so after examining each lot. We find this is missing. We cannot indulge in conjecture whether the variation in weight or clarity is marginal so as not to affect the value or identity of the lots. Weight is directly related to the size of diamonds. If the size of the diamonds is small, a small variation in weight can substantially increase the pieces of diamonds and similarly, if the size of the diamonds is bigger, the price thereof may increase manifold even with a small variation in weight. 19.3 Based on the details of the lots allegedly involved in circular trading, Annexure-H I to the show-cause notice, contain details of these lots, bill of entry wise, and shipping bill wise, to allege circular trading. AEL in its reply to the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oral evidence if contrary to documents has no value since documentary evidence shall prevail over oral statements. At the time of hearing before us the ld. Counsels also produced a typed statement analysing the transactions of July, 2005 shown to Lumesh Sanghavi as recorded in his statement dated 28-2-2006, to illustrate that on facts, the allegation of circular trading cannot be maintained. From the typed statements, it is seen that while exporting D-Cut white diamonds under invoice dated 21-7-2005, the weight of PK 4 variety was 486.57 carats and that of PK 5 variety was 733.67 carats and if the same set (lot) of diamonds were allegedly imported on 26-7-2005 from Spectrum Trading, UAE, then the weight of each variety at the time of second export ought to have been the same, but as seen from the export invoice dated 28-7-2005, the weight of PK 4 variety was 725.63 carats which is much more than 486.57 carats in the previous exports and so also in case of PK 5, the weight in the second export was significantly lower at 512.61 carats as compared 733.67 carats. This difference in the weight (carats) of the two different variety of diamonds - PK4 and PK 5 show that there is no circula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsidiary agreed to arrange for and organise processing of unassorted diamonds in India through AEL or its nominees and Daboul agreed to procure unassorted diamonds directly or through its nominees for export to India and thereafter, purchase the same after processing in India through its intermediaries in Hongkong or Singapore for its European buyers. Shri Singh, ld. Special Counsel, as has the Commissioner strongly objected to the reliance on this MOU. He submits that this MOU was never produced during investigations. On the other hand, AEL submits that, although a copy of this MOU was not produced during investigations there are enough references to the arrangement and understanding mentioned in the MOU in the statements of various persons recorded during investigations. Our attention has been drawn to the statement dated 24-1-2006 of Samir Vora in which he has, inter alia, stated that AEL s overseas agents Daboul sent them proposal for unassorted diamonds and Daboul gives them the range of existing international value and after discussions, AEL sends its own proposal and that the value is decided after negotiation, if necessary. Bhavik Shah is the other person who makes referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tor of Adani Global Pte Ltd., Singapore and these e-mails are sent internally to all persons connected with AEL based in either India or Singapore or Dubai. It is alleged that if AEL does not control overseas entities there was no reasons for Ms. Mary to pass on information relating to bank accounts and its details including password to other persons within the Adani group and likewise there was no need for Ms. Mary to report the transfer of funds with reference to certain specified transaction from one overseas entity to another or from Indian company to overseas entity or by an overseas entity to an Indian company. We find that except for agreeing to what has been stated in these e-mails, none of the persons like Bhavik Shah, Vipul Desai or C.E. Mahadevan have admitted to these e-mails being evidence of either control by AEL of the overseas entities or to circular trading. Unfortunately, hereto the statement of Ms. Mary Joseph, author of almost all these mails have not been recorded, we are left to imagination why she was writing such mails and on whose instructions. These gaps are extremely vital to the issues at hand and fatal to the case of the department. AEL submits that she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rresponding to the circular trading of the lots as alleged in the show cause notice, meaning thereby the allegation of circular trading is unsupported by evidence of corresponding financial trail. 21.2 As has been stated in the show cause notice, the e-mails referred to in Annexure-M to the show cause notice show control by AEL of the overseas entities. We have already held what tests and conditions needs to be satisfied in law to establish control . It seems Ms. Mary Joseph has merely collated the information into e-mails which is otherwise available from the documents relating to the respective transaction which documents show the name of the buyer, name of the seller, serial number and date of the invoice, the amount and the bank in which the payment is to be remitted. These e-mails do not reveal the possibility of these e-mails being sent as a result of said MOU cannot be ruled out. We find nothing incriminating in these e-mails or anything to draw an inference of control of overseas entities by AEL. 21.3 Even if we were not to consider the said MOU, the e-mails can at best give rise to suspicion that AEL controlled the overseas entities. This, however, will remain a suspicion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gation of control by AEL. We have for reasons recorded above, found both these charges to be unsustainable. On behalf of the Indian companies it was submitted that payment of commission in fact proves that the transactions of import and export of diamonds were genuine and on principal-to-principal basis since otherwise there was no need for them to pay commission if the transactions were bogus or involved mere circular trading. So also in relation to LC discount and buyers credit, it is submitted that these transactions were entered into because of interest arbitrage, since there is wide variation in the rates of interest between international markets and India. It is submitted that they have acted like any other prudent business men would do in the like circumstances. The department however, contends that AEL was strictly monitoring the number of days involved in the fund flow and its banking team in India took all decisions in relation to payments for all imports and exports. Suffice for us to state that when we have held the declared FOB value to be correct and there is no circular trading, we need not go into these issues, more so, when in query from the Bench whether the payme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or commission under the Act to levy penalty on them. Section 114 of the Act does not create vicarious liability. It is an action in personam. It is therefore necessary to show how each of these individuals acted in a manner which resulted in misdeclaration of FOB value to render the goods liable to confiscation under Section 113(i). We find no justification has been provided by the Commissioner in the order. The statement of these individuals are exculpatory, besides not being adversely implicated by others. In any case, we have set aside penalties on all concerned as aforesaid. 24 . In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner and allow the appeals filed by all the parties and dismiss the appeals filed by the Department. Consequential reliefs if any are allowed 4.1 We also find that the above order of the CESTAT was also upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in Commissioner Vs. Adani Enterprises Ltd. - 2016(342)ELT A50(SC) and review petition filed by Revenue was also dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.03.2017 4.2 We find that the disputed matter is well settled in favour of the respondents by the above decisions. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pylene filters Plates and accessories as contained in the shipping bills furnished by the petitioners. The said DEPB licences were required to be forwarded to the Customs for verification of the particulars set out in the shipping bills and necessary endorsement thereon. Under Circular No. 15/97 dated 3-6-1997 the verification by the Customs authorities was restricted to the description, quantity and FOB value of the export product set out in the Shipping Bill. it is not the case of the Customs authorities that there is any discrepancy, quantity and FOB value of the export product. Under the circumstances, when the DEPB licence is issued by the Licensing authorities specifically holding that the Petitioners are entitled to avail the benefit of the DEPB Scheme in respect of Polypropylene filter plates and accessories, the Customs authorities were not justified in rejecting the claim of the Petitioners on the ground that the Articles exported by the Petitioners were not covered under Chapter 39 ITC (HS) classification. Whether an item falls under Chapter 39 of ITC classification or not is for the licensing authorities to consider before issuing the licence. Even after the issuance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
