AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 774
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 02023000 of Export Import Policy 2009-14 and Chapter sub-heading 02023000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 ('CTA'). It is stated that the Petitioner has been issued IEC No. 0595040144 by the Director General of Foreign Trade ('DGFT'), New Delhi on 14th November 1995. 3. It is stated that the meat processing plant of Petitioner No. 1 is located at Manesar, Gurgaon (Haryana) and its corporate and registered office is at Sarva Priya Vihar, New Delhi. It is stated that the meat processing plant is duly approved and registered by Agriculture and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority ('APEDA') under registration certificate dated 3rd September 1996. It is stated that Petitioner No. 1 availed export incentives for the export of frozen buffalo meat under Duty Exemption Pass Book Scheme ('DEPB') and Vishesh Krishi and Gram Upaj Yojena ('VKGUY'). 4. It is further stated that under Serial No. 21 of Chapter 2 of Export Policy, 2009-14 ('Export Policy'), the export of frozen boneless buffalo meat is permissible subject to the following conditions: (i) export allowed on production of a certificate from the designated veterinary authority of the State from which the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etitioner No. 1 requested the Deputy Director Animal Husbandry, Gurgaon, Haryana to permit them to get their samples drawn by the Veterinary Officers of Meerut Division in Uttar Pradesh ('UP') and thereafter get it tested at Animal Husbandry Disease Diagnostic Laboratory, National Capital Territory of Delhi ('NCT of Delhi'). It is stated that this permission was given and pursuant thereto a request was made to the Veterinary Department of Meerut Division to draw samples from the meat processing unit of Petitioner No. 1 and send it for testing to the diagnostic laboratory in the NCT of Delhi. 10. It is stated that after the Veterinary Officer of the Meerut Division drew the sample they were tested by the Assistant Director Animal Husbandry Department at the disease diagnostic laboratory, NCT of Delhi. The test report and the certificate issued by the Veterinary Officer accompanied the export documents were submitted by Petitioner No. 1 and on that basis the Customs Officials issued 'let export order'. On the basis of the let export order, the DGFT issued the requisite certificates to Petitioner No. 1 to avail the benefit of DEPB and VKGUY Scheme. 11. On receipt of 'intelli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relation to the meat processing plant of Petitioner No. 1 at IMT Manesar, Haryana. It was further stated that the Disease Diagnostic Laboratories at Palam and Moti Bagh in Delhi were not competent to exercise any jurisdiction for issuing the Veterinary Health Certificates since the exports were made from the Manesar Plant in Gurgaon (Haryana). It was further stated in the SCN that APEDA had approved the Manesar plant of Petitioner No. 1 only for meat processing whereas dressed carcasses were shown to have been procured from the government slaughter houses. There was no certificate issued by the said slaughter houses certifying ante and post mortem report of the animals. It was accordingly alleged that 'non-adherence to the restrictions prescribed in ITC (HS), prima facie have rendered exports of M/s. F.N.S. Agro Foods Limited unauthorized.' It was further stated that no claim under the DEPB/VKGUY Scheme was, therefore, also inadmissible to Petitioner No. 1. Accordingly, Petitioner No. 1 was asked to show cause why its IEC should not be suspended under Section 9(4) of FTDR (Regulations) Rules, 1993; why it should not be declared a defaulter and placed in the Denied Entity List ('DEL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ody (DGFT in this case) to devise alternatives in case authorized Government doctor(s) is/are not available in the respective exporting State and as to how the exporter will export goods in such a situation. The Customs has at no point of time, issued any instructions to deal with such cases presumable due to the fact that we do not frame Import/Export Policy not being our Charter of duties.' 19. As regards question (b) it was simply stated that 'nothing prevents the exporter from procuring dressed carcasses from neighbouring state in the absence of government slaughter houses in the State where the processing plant is located. However, they have to be accompanied by Veterinary Health Certificates from the veterinary doctor supervising the respective government approved slaughter houses that the dressed carcass was indeed sourced from there-which, as this office has already informed, has not been provided in this case.' 20. A further letter issued by the Dy. DGFT on 5th September 2012, was replied to by Petitioner No. 1 on 11th September 2012 informing that they had submitted the necessary certificate dated 19th June 2008 issued by the designated Veterinary Authority, Jaipur ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vailed VKGUY/DEPB credit. (v) interest at appropriate rates should not be demanded from them on the amount of customs duty demanded from them as per (1) above in terms of the provisions of the Section 28AB of the Act. (vi) Penalty should not be imposed upon them in terms of Sections 114 and 114AA of the Act for various acts of omissions and commissions by them as aforesaid, relating to fraudulent exporting of prohibited goods. (vii) Penalty should not imposed upon Mr. M. Salim Khatri, Mr. Fazlu Rehman Khatri, Mr. Abdul Nasir Khatri and Mr. Naushad Khatri, all the directors of Petitioner No. 1 under Sections 114 and 114AA of the Act for various acts of omissions and commissions by them as aforesaid, relating to fraudulent exporting of prohibited goods. 23. The Petitioners replied to the said SCN on 17th April 2014 requesting for copies of the relied upon documents ('RUDs') without which a proper reply could not furnished to the SCN. After waiting for the said RUDs, the Petitioners filed W.P. (Civil) No. 6114 of 2014 seeking quashing of the SCN. The present writ petitions 24. By an order dated 12th September 2014 notice was issued to the Respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is confined to verification of correctness of exporter's declaration regarding description, quality and F.O.B. value of the export product and that the question of violation of the requirements of the Hand-Book of Procedure in terms of the Export and Import Policy should be examined by the DGFT. He referred to Section 9 of the FTDR Act which questioned the DGFT powers regarding issue, suspension and cancellation of licence. He also referred to the FTDR Rules which specifically empower the DGFT to suspend the operation of licence or cancel licence. Submissions on behalf of the Respondent 29. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue on the other hand sought to defend the impugned SCN by referring the paragraphs thereunder which alleged violation of the Act by the Petitioners. He submitted that the Petitioners should respond to the SCN and participate in the adjudication proceedings and thereafter pursue their remedies in accordance with law. 30. According to Mr Satish Kumar, the Petitioners had contravened Rule 5 of the 1992 Rules since they failed to obtain a valid veterinary health certificate from the designated veterinary of the State Animal Hu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y Schemes (I) Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 32. In part VI of the SCNs the discussion turns to export of prohibited goods. This is nothing but a repetition of the same allegations which were been examined in detail by the Dy DGFT. Then follows the discussion on 'Wrong Availment of Export Incentives' which again sets out the same allegation of violation by the Petitioners of the FTDR Act and the requirement of submitting certificates. The further discussion is on the other violations of the provisions of Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963. The SCNs refers to the statement during the investigation. This is the very same material which was sent by the Customs Authorities to the DGFT on the basis of which SCN was issued by the Dy DGFT on 10th April 2012 and which resulted in the order dated 24th September 2012 of the DY DGFT whereby the charges against the Petitioners were dropped. 33. As observed by the Supreme Court in Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi (supra) if the licence issuing authority, which in this case is the DGFT, has not questioned the veracity of the transactions undertaken under the licence,....