2018 (12) TMI 1486

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s and exported goods as required in the condition of the Advance License # p/w/2270714 dated 9.1.95; that it was not established that the imported polyester fabric 58 was commercially usable for manufacture of synthetic shoes (which was the export product); that the fabric being an item in the sensitive list, quantitative restriction was attracted. 4. The appellant were heard on 29.09.09. I have considered the submission. It is true that not only the conditions of the exemption notification have to be satisfied but also those expressly mentioned in the license. The license had in fact a condition that there must be nexus between the imported and exported goods. This condition was not, as found by the lower authority, superseded in the du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....1 The appellants filled three bill of entries namely 884578, 884579 and 884580 dated 27.02.2009 for clearance of polyester fabrics claiming benefit exemption under notification No 203/92-Cus against Value Based advance License (VBAL) {License No p/w/2270714 da 09.01.1995 validated (as amended0 till 25.06.2009}. 2.2 Since the revenue was of the view that the benefit of exemption under notification 203/92-us cannot be extended in the case of import of "polyester fabric 58" matter was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide his order in original dated 07.08.2009, holding as follows: "I now have to decide, whether "polyester fabric 58" can be considered as synthetic material for the purpose of clearance against this subject Licens....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal). Commissioner (Appeal) rejected appeal filed by the appellant holding as stated in para 1, supra. 2.7 Aggrieved appellants have filed these appeals. 3.1 In their appeal appellants have assailed the order of Commissioner (Appeal) stating- i. The imported goods i.e. "Polyester Fabric" are synthetic material which can be used as a lining material in the manufacturing of "synthetic shoes". ii. Imported goods are not sensitive items, since no quantity restrictions have been imposed in the license. It is well settled that absence of specific quantity restriction in the value based advance license for the Fabrics, would not render the lines invalid. Once an advance license is made transferabl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Test Report from Textile Committee, Clarification issued by DGFT etc, confirming that the imported material is a synthetic material and can be used in the manufacturing of synthetic shoes. vii. Since these documentary evidence which he produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) go to the root of matter under consideration Commissioner (Appeal) should have not denied them by resorting to Rule 5 of Customs (Appeal) Rules, 1982. 4.1 We have heard Shri Arun Jain Learned Advocate and Shri Bhushan Kamble, Assistant Commissioner Authorized Representative for the revenue. 4.2 Arguing for the appellant learned advocate reiterated the submissions made in the appeal. He drew the attention of Bench to the Test Report No TC/LM/SE/7497/2008-09 ....