TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether exports made after filing an application for advance licence but before the licence was actually issued could be treated as exports in discharge of the export obligation under the licence; (ii) whether the allegation of tampering of the DEEC Book Part-I was established.
Issue (i): Whether exports made after filing an application for advance licence but before the licence was actually issued could be treated as exports in discharge of the export obligation under the licence.
Analysis: The export was examined in the light of Section 2(18) of the Customs Act, 1962 and Paras 66 and 67 of the EXIM Policy. The relevant principle applied was that export takes place when the goods leave India, and exports made in anticipation of the licence, after filing of the application and before issuance of the licence, may be counted towards the export obligation when the licence is eventually granted and endorsed in the DEEC book.
Conclusion: The export was rightly treated as valid discharge of the export obligation, against the assessee's challenge and in favour of the Revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the allegation of tampering of the DEEC Book Part-I was established.
Analysis: The record did not establish the alleged tampering with satisfactory proof. The finding was that the allegation rested on suspicion alone, and suspicion could not substitute for proof.
Conclusion: The charge of tampering was not proved, in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner was upheld in substance and the appeal failed, leaving the impugned findings undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: For customs export compliance, the relevant export date is when the goods leave India, and exports made after filing an application for licence but before the licence is issued may satisfy the export obligation if the licence is later granted and duly endorsed; allegations of tampering must be proved and cannot rest on suspicion.
TaxTMI 
