9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26-9-2000 of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai where under demand of duty was made in respect of certain fabrics imported by the appellants under DEEC Scheme. Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed on the appellants. The demand of duty and imposition of penalty are on the ground that the fabrics cleared duty free under DEEC Licence where polyester fabrics, while the DEEC licence was in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n description of the fabrics in the imported DEEC Licence and the shipping documents. 3. The ld. Consultant for the appellants has submitted that it is settled law that once the export obligation had been fulfilled, no duty demand can be raised and penalty imposed. In this context, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dolphin Drugs (P) Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai reported in [2000 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties after accepting the licence. It is not in dispute that the appellants used the same fabrics which was imported for export production and exported the goods. Thus, correlation between imported goods and the exported goods is complete. The imported fabrics were arranged by the buyers of the finished garments and the buyer has also accepted the exported garments as produced from the fabrics whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions. If the difference in description of the goods had been pointed out by the Customs Authorities at the time of import of the goods the appellants could have either got the description amended as to match the goods or to resort to draw back route. The delay in raising the dispute cannot be allowed to have the effect of denying export goods; duty exemption. We find that this Tribunal has t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
