TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (7) TMI 1041
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Free Replenishments Certificate (DFRC) issued by Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The quantity allowed to be imported has been imported. Revenue's grievance being that DGFT should not have allowed the quantity mentioned in DFRC for import is baseless. DGFT is an independent authority who issues DFRC in accordance with the rules and norms followed by them. In order to examine the real requirement of the Titanium Dioxide and also use thereof, this appellant had faced a proceedings before that Authority in terms of a show cause notice issued on 16-10-06. In that proceedings, DGFT authority examined the quantity of Titanium Dioxide required for use in manufacture and upon examination, that authority found that the DFRC issued was prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-3-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi.] In this case, learned counsel Shri Mew appearing on behalf of the appellant M/s. Neeraj Ressyan Udyog in appeal case No. C/362 of 2009 submits that this appellant is a bona fide transferee of the DFRC transferred by the transferor M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. When the DGFT authorities found that M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. is a bona fide DFRC holder, this transferee-appellant has equally a better title what that was held by the transferor. Therefore, no pre-deposit may also be called for from this appellant against the Customs duty demand of Rs. 3,86,944/- (Rupees Three Lakh Eighty Six Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Four) as well as the fine and penalty arose in consequence of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he goods elsewhere for their unlawful gain at the cost of Revenue. Revenue has been seriously prejudiced for the shelter taken by the appellant in terms of the DGFT's order dated 5-6-07. Page 6 of the order-in-original brings out the allegation categorically against the appellant. Para 9.3 is specific in this regard. Revenue went on examining the returns filed by the appellant. Serious discrepancy has been noticed against the appellant. At page 16, the oral evidence of Shri R.K. Aggarwal and the statement of Shri Milan Aggarwal who was Chemical Engineer proved questionable conduct of the appellant. The Panchnama dated 8-2-06 appearing in Para 10 brought out the manner of examination by the Revenue as to various records recovered in the cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... = 2006 (1) LCX 10. Relying on this decision in Para 13, learned Jt. CDR's submission is that the Customs Authorities are independent authority under the statute who look into administration of customs law and procedure under Customs Act, 1962. DGFT is a different authority to carry out the purport of the law they administer. Therefore, Customs is Competent Authority to investigate into violation of the Customs provisions and violation of conditions of notifications which is not the domain of DGFT. To dis-entitle the claim of Notification benefit to the appellant, learned Jt. CDR relies on the decision of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) v. Aafloat Textiles (I) P. Ltd. reported in 2009 (235) E.L.T. 587 (S.C.). Therefore, following the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been made in the show cause notice after the DGFT has passed order on 5-6-07. It also appears from the show cause notice of the DGFT issued on 16-10-06, that the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence was communicated for rendering proper assistance in the matter of determination of quantum of Titanium Dioxide requirement by the appellant for DFRC. The order passed by the DGFT on 5-6-07 does not throw light whether any representative of Revenue represented before DGFT to make its claim. In absence of their representative and objection, DGFT came to the conclusion that the document filed by M/s. Prayag Polytech Pvt. Ltd. was the basis for decision by that authority. Accordingly, that authority held that the documents were genuin....