9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1324X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er filed Bill of Entry No. 969020 dated 19.3.2013 under EPCG scheme for import of one machine (automatic cone winding machine with Yarn Splicer and Auto Doffing System). The machines were supplied by Murata Machinery Ltd. (MML), Japan. The officers of SIIB checked the container and found there were two machines (headstocks) and 96 drums against the declared quantity of 1 headstock and 84 drums i.e. one headstock and 12 drums were found in excess. The cargo was seized by the officers. The Chartered Engineer who inspected the container also certified that there were 2 headstocks and 96 drums. The imported cargo thus did not appear to tally with the permissible quantity of goods in the EPCG license. After due process of law, the value of the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance. He further stated that as per para 2.26 of the Foreign Trade Policy, goods already imported /shipped / arrived, in advance but not cleared from customs may also be cleared against an Authorisation issued subsequently. The appellant had obtained a second EPCG licence which included the excess goods received. Further the licence granted to them having already expired, the appellant cannot hope to get benefitted from out of it in any way and it cannot be sold out to third parties either. In these circumstances, the impugned order seeking to reverse the credit that was already availed by the appellant, now, when the licence itself carries no validity and hence is of no use to the appellant is not proper. The Ld. Counsel stated that as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is was brought to the notice of the Original Authority, no decision has been recorded on the same. Once the importer produces a licence it is for the Customs authorities to verify its validity and extends all benefits to the goods if covered by the same. Further now the appellant has also produced a copy of EODC dated 09.01.2024, purportedly evidencing the fulfillment of their export obligation, which requires verification. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Atul Commodities Pvt. Limited v. CC, Cochin [2009 (235) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.)] that if any doubt or question arises in respect of interpretation of Foreign Trade Policy or in the matter of classification of any item of the ITC (HS) or in the Handbook, the said question or doub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The Customs Act 1962 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act) operate in their own spheres. Hence this division of authority between the DGFT and Customs has to be adhered to, in line with the jurisdiction granted by the respective statutes under which the authorities operate. However, whether a penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation, under the Customs statute, is normally a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially, based on the current facts and circumstances of the case, unless stated otherwise in this statute. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Original Authority, for de novo adjudication. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
