9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (6) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing specified goods from payment of customs duty if the goods are imported against advance licence. The petitioner who was carrying on business in the name of M/s. Bharat Export Corporation secured advance import licence on January 28, 1981 for import of polyester fibre with duty entitlement certificate. The value of the two licences was Rs.30,48,606/- and Rs. 25,95,187/-. Against the advance lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the entire polyster fibre to twenty one mills. As the petitioners failed to carry out the export obligation, the authorities served notice on April 4, 1983 for violating the provisions of export obligation. The petitioners filed a reply and claimed that due to textile strike which commenced in Bombay in year 1981 and which led to closure of mills for about two years, the export obligation could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 concurred with the finding that the petitioner is guilty of fraud and misrepresentation. The Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that the licences could not be cancelled abinitio, but the Order of cancellation in respect of the balance value of the two licences could be sustained. The Appellate Authority then observed that Additional Chief Controller's Order may be amplified inasmuch that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this Court should issue a Writ directing the authority to permit the petitioner to fulfil export obligation. It is impossible to accede to the submission of the learned counsel. In the first instance as both authorities have found that the petitioner had secured the two advance licences by playing fraud and by misrepresentation and as that finding cannot be seriously disputed, the petitioner can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Appellate Authority is misconstrued by the petitioner. The Appellate Authority merely observed that the import already affected should be regularised subject to the fulfilment of the export obligation. This does not entitle the petitioner to claim that permission should be granted now, that is after passage of several years to fulfil the export obligation. Mr. Deodhar also points out that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
