9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 23X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ug known as `Refampicin'. On March 1, 1979, Central Government issued Notification No. 45 under the Customs Act exempting the bulk drug `Refampicin' from whole of Customs duty if the said bulk drug is used in the manufacture of life saving drug viz. `Rifampicin Capsules'. On September 22, 1981, Central Government issued Notification No. 208/81 exempting above mentioned life saving drug viz. `Rifampicin Capsules' also from whole of Customs duty. Pursuant to the said Notifications, petitioners imported 950 kgs. of above mentioned bulk drug `Rifampicin' for use in the manufacture of life saving drug `Rifampicin Capsules'. Pursuant to the above Notifications, petitioners executed bonds in favour of the Customs by which the petitioners agreed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent No. 3 passed an order forfeiting the bonds and ordered payment of Rs. 22,99,044/- as duty on the ground that the imported bulk drugs were not used for manufacture of life saving drugs. The order of the respondent No. 3 proceeds on the basis that when bonds are given by the petitioners and pursuant to the bonds the goods are imported, they have to be used for manufacture of life saving drugs and since the same end use is not fulfilled, petitioners were liable to pay Rs. 22,99,044/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed April 10, 1986 had decided the matter on merits in favour of the petitioners. Despite the said order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) on remand, respondent No. 3 once again demanded Rs. 22,99,044/- on the ground that end use certificates were not produced by the petitioners. By the impugned order dated August 1, 1986, the respondent No. 3 on remand once again came to the same conclusion. By the said order, respondent No. 3 did not accept petitioners' offer to pay the differential duty at the rate of 2% on the ground that it cannot be decided in adjudication proceedings. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated August 1, 1986, petitioners once again preferred an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs and the R.B.I. permitted petitioners to re-export the goods in 1984, petitioners cannot be asked to pay entire duty of Rs. 22,99,044/-. Shri Bhatt pointed out that under Section 74, petitioners were entitled to re-export the said goods under the cover of duty drawback shipping bills but they were advised to re-export the said goods against free shipping goods. Shri Bhatt pointed out that under Section 74, petitioners were required to pay the entire duty of Rs. 22,99,044/- and thereafter they were entitled to claim drawback of 98% whereas in the present case, since re-export was permitted by the Customs under the above circumstances, the petitioners in order to show their bona fides offered to pay duty to the tune of 2%. Shri Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (Appeals) also came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the petitioners to obtain end use certificate and that there was only technical fault on the part of the petitioners who re-exported the goods under free shipping bills whereas petitioners were required to re-export the goods under duty drawback shipping bills. In the circumstances, the Collector came to the conclusion that there was a technical lapse on the part of the petitioners. Actually, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) should have decided the matter. There was no need to remand the matter. In any event, the matter stood remanded. Respondent No. 3, after remand, has only proceeded on the footing that conditions mentioned in the bonds should be complied with and sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
