2004 (4) TMI 389

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ata (hereinafter referred to as Co-Applicant) have filed Settlement applications bearing No. SA(C) No. 352-353/2003, dated 24-1-2003 in respect of Show Cause Notice (SCN) F.No. S2-64/2002-SIB, dated 6-9-2002 issued by Dy. Commissioner of Customs, SIB, Customs House, Kolkata. 2. The facts of the case are that the applicant is the holder of advance licence No. 0210018809/3, dated 17-1-2001 which permitted import of fabrics for CIF value of Rs. 10,01,91,441/- with an obligation to export garments for US $ 29,40,400.97 or Rs. 13,52,58,445/-. They had imported 79 consignments of fabrics for the manufacture of garments for export. For this purpose they availed exemption under Notification 48/99-Cus., dated 29-4-1999 at nil rate of duty. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....90/- should not be demanded with interest @ 24% p.a. in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Act); (iii)      the P.D. Bonds executed at the time of import should not be enforced; (iv)      bank guarantee of Rs. 22,54,000/- executed at the time of importation should not be encashed; (v)        penal action against the applicant and the co-applicant as well as one more Director, Shri Paritosh Chander should not be taken under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Act; (vi)      penal action under Section 114A of the Act should not be taken for violation of the Notification 48/99-Cus., dated....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....etely correct. The Revenue informed that, so far, they had encashed 4 bank guarantees worth Rs.10 lakhs. During the hearing on 26-8-2003, the Advocate for the applicant Shri Piyush Kumar pleaded that he had not received any communication from the applicant and hence was not in a position to make any submission or defend the applicants. The representative for the Revenue requested that the case be returned to the Department so that they could proceed in the matter and realise the amount due to the Government. At this point, the Commission asked Revenue to inform the Bench within one month whether it had any details of the properties and other assets owned by the applicant which could be attached for recovery of the sums due from the applican....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deeds to the Commission. As regards the explanation in respect of the Schedule, sources and means by which the admitted duty liability was proposed to be paid, the co-applicant sought some more time so that he could evaluate his assets, amounts/goods that were pending in control of the department and his stocks. Thereafter a further hearing took place on 16-4-2004. During this hearing, Shri Navneet Panwar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant informed the Bench that Shri Piyush Kumar, Advocate who has been appearing for the applicant could not come to attend the hearing due to ill health and prayed for fixing another date for the hearing. The Bench pointed out that almost a year had elapsed since the admission hearing took place an....