TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 567
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d prayers made are lying in a narrow compass. 2. The appellants herein, M/s. Pennar Industries Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'PIL',), imported hot rolled non alloy steel wide coils against an Advance Licence issued under the DEEC Scheme. The quantity of such import was 2018.6 MTs. The imports were made on 3-3-1999 and 12-4-1999 and the goods were taken to their Isnapur Unit and there they were entered in the relevant raw material register. The imports were made under Notification 30/97 as amended on 1-4-1997 which allows actual users to import raw materials duty free to be converted into specified finished products and exported as per export obligations given in the advance licences. They were therefore to effect export of 1000 M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d vide Shipping Bill Nos. 1000051316, dated 17-5-2000 and 1000048872, dated 10-5-2000. These exports were made to Bangladesh via Mumbai Port. Further a quantity of 510.515 MTs was exported to Nepal by M/s. Steel Co., Gujarat vide Shipping Bill No. 68/DEEC/2000, dated 23-2-2000. These exports were credited in the book against the export obligations as of M/s. PIL. The exports made through third party were as per Exim Policy and the third party exporters did not avail of any export incentives. However, the show cause notice issued alleged that by not utilising the material imported and sending the same to M/s. Steel Co., Gujarat, M/s. PIL had violated the actual user condition and as the Chartered Engineers were requested by third party expor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."page 10 (x) marked portion" 6. As per Exim Policy, and Boards orders, the petitioner company preferred third party export to fulfil the Export Obligations as per the amended condition and exports were effected. The export performances by third party exporters i.e. M/s. Essar Gujarat, Merchant-Exporters were endorsed in the DEEC books of PIL towards fulfilment of export obligation by proper officers of Customs Department. The DRI officers however did not accept that situation. They, have prematurely before the export obligation period was over, took over DEEC books and brought in the allegation that the appellants have suppressed the angle of third party export. It is submitted by the appellants that the authority competent to deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this case. The order does not indicate the same cannot be upheld on the reasons as advanced by the ld. DR. The order is not upheld and as required to be set aside. 9. The ld. Advocate has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Anmol jewellers - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 1032 (Tribunal) on third party exports; decision of Vax Institute Laboratory Ltd. - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 162 (Tribunal) on Third party exporters to be endorsed in DEEC books; and the decision of Bombay High Court in case of Pradip Polyfils (P) Ltd. - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 3 (Bombay) which lays the jurisdiction in case of DEPB Scheme (another Exim Policy Export Entitlement Scheme) out of bounds of Customs Authority and within the DGFT authority. Nothing contrary ha....