9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f duty imposed by the Collector of Customs. 2.Appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is manufacturer of Aromatic Chemicals and Natural Essential Oils and is a Trading House. Appellant is the exporter of various Dyes and Dye Intermediate etc. Between May, 1993 and October, 1993 the appellant imported various Aromatic Chemicals and Natural Essential Oils against advance licences granted to it by the Licensing Authorities i.e. Joint Chief Controller of Import and Export and Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. All these licenses were quantity based advance licenses issued under the Duty Exemption Scheme contained in Chapter XIX of the Import and Export Policy, 1993 and Chapter VII of the Import and Export Policy 1992-97 in respect of the export products (i) Flavoured Shivalik Mentha Base; (ii) Methyl Hydroxy; and (iii) Flavoured Aromatic Menthol Base. Under the Scheme, quantity based advance licences are issued by the Licensing Authority on the recommendation of a Regional Advance Licensing Committee who then scrutinizes the applications and decides the quantity and value of goods that can be imported against specified quantity and value of any expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... got LUT redeemed, imported 26 consignments of Aromatic Chemicals and Natural Essential Oils in accordance with the licences issued to the appellant. The goods were imported and arrived in India between May 1993 and October 1993. 7.In the meantime 24 more consignments of goods covered by advance licences were imported by the appellant. Again, the Customs Authorities refused to clear the same and the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1865 of 1993 challenging the actions of the Customs Authorities in not clearing the said goods. The High Court directed that those 24 consignments be also cleared on the same terms i.e. on the appellant's furnishing P.D. Bond for the duty amount involved and Bank Guarantee of 50% instead of 25%. 8.In the notice issued, it was alleged that what was exported by appellant, the export being prior to the import of the exempted material, was shown on test to be Plain Menthe Oil and therefore the Natural Essential Oil and Aromatic Chemical were not part of the export product. It was also alleged that no manufacture of the export product had taken place at the premises of the Earnest and Co. at Indore. It recorded that the advance licence and DEEC certifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrespective of whether further examination or formation of opinion is permissible in the ordinary course, the importer cannot be required to prove once again the eligibility for duty free import of the permitted goods. This is what exactly the department is now asking the appellant to do. Therefore, the abovesaid decision squarely comes to the aid of the appellant and accordingly, we hold that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 159/90. Alternatively, it was contended that the appellant is also entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 204/92. It is now seen that the appellants have filed the bill of entry after this notification was issued by the Govt. on 19-5-1992. Therefore, it is a relevant notification which has to be considered. As per Clause 4 of Chapter 1 of EXIM Policy 1992-97, it is made clear that licences issued before the commencement of this Policy shall continue to be valid for the import/export of the items permitted thereunder. It is to be seen that whether this licence is a quantity based licence and the quantity based licence shall specify the names and descriptions of items to be imported and the quantity of each item to be imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon that the DEEC book itself mentions that one of the conditions in the notification that the goods must be covered by a DEEC book specified in the schedule to the notification. The Schedule specifies the number of the notification. All these lead us to conclude that there are significant differences in the two notifications. While each of them serve the general purpose of export promotion, the manner in which they are worded and administered differs significantly. The arguments of the departmental representative before the Madras Bench, recorded in paragraph 6 of its order, do not refer to any of these considerations. We are quite satisfied if these points had been urged, a very different result might have arisen. We are therefore unable with respect, to treat that decision as binding. For the reasons it will also be clear that it is not possible to extend the benefit of notification 204/92." 13.Instead of referring the matter to a larger Bench in order to maintain the judicial propriety in decision-making, the Tribunal took it upon itself to disagree with the aforesaid decision in Jayant R. Patel (supra) in refusing to follow the same. 14.This Court in the case of Jayaswal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
