TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 462
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....require careful consideration. The appellants had imported 'satellite communication equipments' under EPCG scheme in the year 2003 and filed 11 Bills of Entry during June - October 2003 for clearance of the goods. They also obtained clearance of the goods at concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 55/2003. However, later on, SIIB of the Department found misdeclaration, by the importer, of complete equipment as parts and also found that clearance of the goods was obtained without the requisite licence [hereinafter referred to as WPC licence] from the Ministry of Communication, Govt, of India. After further investigations including recovery of incriminating documents, recording of statements etc., SIIB seized the goods under ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cence was asked for by the Customs authorities and therefore clearance was secured with the benefit of the above Notification. The investigations also disclosed that the imported goods, after clearance, had been assembled in a vehicle but the same were yet to be functional for want of some more equipments. Yet another fact which came to light was that, even after expiry of the period stipulated in the Notification, the requisite installation certificate had not been obtained by the appellants from the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise concerned and produced before the Customs authorities. Thus breach of a substantive condition of the Notification was found against the appellants. These investigative results made their way into....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r behalf is enforceable; (d) I order that the goods imported vide 10 Bills of Entry valued at Rs. 1,40,44,270/- is held liable for confiscation under Sec. 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I impose a redemption fine of Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy lakhs only) in lieu of confiscation; (e) I impose a penalty of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- (Rupees One crore ninety lakhs only) on M/s. Raj Television Network Ltd. under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; (f) I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) on Shri M. Rajhenndran, Managing Director of M/s. Raj Television Network Ltd. Under Sec. 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; (g)&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has reiterated this challenge and prayed for a direction to the Commissioner to release the goods provisionally to the appellants to enable them to honour their contractual obligations. The present application filed by the company also states that they have certain contractual obligations to be urgently discharged by making use of the aforesaid equipments. We have learned SDR also, who has reiterated the findings of the Commissioner and has particularly urged that, in the event of the present application being favorably considered, appropriate conditions should be laid down to safeguard the interest of the Revenue. 3. We have considered the submissions and also perused the documents which accompanied the present applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be required for operational use of the equipment. Learned counsel has referred to these documents and has claimed that the equipments mentioned in the schedule to the above licence are the same as those covered under Bill of Entry No. 6394 dated 6-8-2003. This submission has not been seriously contested. However, learned SDR has invited our attention to the validity period of the licence now produced by the appellants. It is pointed out that the imports were made in the year 2003 and therefore the present licence for import is infructuous. In our considered view, these aspects touching the validity of the WPC licence now produced by the appellants shall be looked into by the Commissioner. 4. As it appears from the impugned order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Notification, we have found a valid point in learned counsel's submission, which will be subject to further examination at the final hearing stage. Meanwhile, we are of the view that learned Commissioner can consider provisional release of the goods covered under the 10 Bills of Entry also subject to such conditions as we may stipulate in this order. In taking this view, we have mainly considered the liability of the appellants to discharge export obligation within a period stipulated by DGFT. The total period permitted for this purpose is 8 years from the date of the EPCG licence. There is no limit prescribed for exports for the 1st and 2nd years of this period. For the 3rd and 4th years together, the appellants are liable to export 1....