2006 (1) TMI 406

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cences : (1)     Advance Licence No. 2147508 dated 17-8-94 (2)     Advance Licence No. 2147509 dated 17-8-94 and (3)     Advance Licence No. 2071767 dated 6-1-95 for import of certain quantities of polyester filament yarn which were quantified on the basis that, if polyester filament yarn used in the exported fabrics was 1 kg, the import entitlement under Advance Licence would be 1.1.kg. Another Advance Licence No. 2071825 dated 12-1-95 was also issued to the exporters. Under the belief that the quantum of exports and/or the composition of the exported fabrics was mis-declared to the Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade for the purpose of obtaining Advance Li....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cence No. 2071767 dated 6-1-95 and Advance Licence No. 2147509 dated 17-8-94 due to mis-declaration and also referred to the fact that the 3rd Licence No. 2147508 dated 17-8-94 was also liable to be cancelled as it was obtained by mis-representation. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs who confirmed duty demand of Rs. 25,37,223/- against the exporter (partnership firm) under the proviso to Section 28(1), imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs upon its partner Shri Arun D. Mehra in addition to imposing penalty of Rs. 13 lakhs and penalty of Rs. one lakh on the proprietor and employee respectively of the CHA, M/s. Amol Shipping Agency. Hence, these appeals by the exporter and Shri Arun D. Mehra. 2. We have heard both ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....imported by others, cannot be sustained against M/s. Dharam Exports. The ratio of M/s. Dharam Exports case decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and hence, following the same, we set aside the duty demand confirmed against M/s. Vijeta International. 3. Ld. D.R's reliance on the Tribunal's order in M/s. Indian Potash Ltd. v. CCE [1991 (55) E.L.T. 236] to support his contention that filing of Bills of Entry by some person would not in itself be conclusive of their status as importers, is mis­placed as in that case it was conclusively found that the import of muriate of potash by canalising agency was by MMTC and although some Bs/E had been filed by M/s. Indian Potash Ltd, they cannot be treated as the im....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the exporter inflated the weight of the fabrics in the E.P. copy of the Shipping Bills (the weight of the finished export products declared on the original/duplicate copy of the Shipping Bill is less than that declared in the E.P. copies of the Shipping Bill) so as to get higher input output entitlements, is also not sustainable as the Shipping Bills are not relied upon in the list of documents annexed to the show cause notice and also for the reason that DGFT's cancellation of licence has been subsequently set aside and the issue as to whether the licences were correctly issued to the exporters has been remanded. The goods are therefore, not liable to confiscation and not liable to duty. 4. Penalty imposed upon the partner of t....