TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (6) TMI 715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 is mainly engaged in the field of Cargo handling operation at Haldia Dock Complex. They imported various equipments including Mobile Harbour Cranes, Wheel Loaders, Dumpers etc. under a scheme that would exempt import duty subject to compliance of conditions imposed there for. As per the Foreign Policy, they were supposed to furnish Bank Guarantees covering the export duty so that, in case of any violation of the conditions the authorities would be in a position to collect the duty through invocation of Bank Guarantees. The entire scheme was being monitored by Director General of Foreign Trade (D.G.F.T.). The import was effected in 2009 followed by three Bank Guarantees amounting to Rs. 3,01,10,808.00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation by directing return of the guarantees amounting to Rs. 22 crores. His Lordship rejected the contentions of the Customs as according to the Customs, the H.B.T. was still under obligation to furnish further documents. His Lordship observed, the letter dated March 14, 2013 from the office of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade would make it clear, H.B.T. performed their obligation stipulated in the licence. Hence, the Customs Authority could not have any duty claim against the plaintiff. His Lordship directed discharge of the guarantees. The Customs Authority subsequently discharged the guarantees and preferred this belated appeal that we heard on the above mentioned dates. Contentions 2. Mr. R. Bharadwaj learned Counsel a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars as asked for. According to him, the Customs Authority asked for the documents by their letter dated on May 2, 2013 that HBT replied promptly on May 9, 2013. The Customs Authority never replied back asking for any further details. Hence, H.B.T. was entitled to release all the guarantees. On instruction, Mr. Mitra would inform this Court, H.B.T. never removed any equipment from Haldia Port Complex. They would be relocating those equipments in terms of the Court order passed in another proceeding. Hence, there was no violation on the part of the H.B.T. 4. To support his contention Mr. Mitra would rely upon two decisions: 1. Hy-Grade Pellets Ltd. v. Commissioner of Custom 2004 (171) ELT 177 (Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T. to the following extent: "With reference to your letter dated September 30,2009 on the above mentioned subject, I write to inform you that on the basis of document submitted towards discharge of export obligation by you, it is observed that the Export Obligation stipulated in the Licence has been made in full in proportion to duty amount utilized by you. Consequently Export Obligation has been discharged against the said authorization in terms of Para 5.13 of H.B. of procedure." 9. If we closely examine the letter, it would appear, the Foreign Trade Department was satisfied with regard to discharge of the export obligation stipulated in the licence that might be one of the s....