TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 336
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orter Code bearing IEC No. 299100813. Petitioner was granted a Quantity Based Advance Import Licence bearing No. P/K/1522804 dated 31st August, 1994, [the Advance License] from the office of Joint DGFT, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh. The said License was issued for import of 54 meters brass scrap holding CIF value of INR 19,44,000/- with a corresponding obligation to export brass handcraft of 50.23 meters for an FOB value amounting to INR 33,53,400/-, within a period of 12 months. Against the said quantities, the Petitioner imported 37.725 meters Brass Scrap with CIF value of INR 13,89,830/-. The corresponding export obligation calculates to 35.093 meters of brass handicrafts valued at INR 23,97,440/-. 2.2. During and after the valid Export Obligation Period [EOP], the Petitioner fulfilled the export obligation to the tune of 34.553 meters tons of brass art wares equalling 98.46% (quantity wise) and 215.28% (value wise), vis-a-vis imports made against the Advance License. Out of the total export quantity, exports under the Advance License Shipping Bills were 27.552 meters and 7 meters under Duty Drawback Shipping Bills. For remaining unfulfilled export obligation of 0.53924 meters, on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the shipping bills submitted by the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority through Order-in-Appeal dated 01st November, 2013 rejected the appeal on the ground that the Petitioner did not produce proof of export made. 2.10. On 25th November, 2013, the Petitioner preferred a review petition under Section 16 of the FTDR Act which culminated into an Order-in-Review dated 29th March, 2022. The said order observed that on 16th March, 2022, Petitioner furnished copies of seven shipping bills out of which two bills bearing Nos. 1000150579 and 1000118881 are outside the EOP and 1000176012 and 1001006167 are in respect of drawback shipping bills. It was held that since dates of two bills are outside the EOP and the Petitioner had not submitted any proof that EOP was extended, the review petition cannot be entertained. Subsequently, the Petitioner was put in the Denied Entry List denying all exporting benefits to them. 2.11. In such circumstances, the Petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking to direct the Respondents to regularize the exports made by Petitioner during the valid EOP and extended EOP. 3. Contrarily, counsel for Respondents submits that Petitioner only s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ended by Competent Authority. It is written on shipping bill that they are provisional pending extension of EOP. (iii) On the S/Bill No. 552 dated 05/10/1996, the bill No and date is hand written. Further, in other entries also changes with pen are there and word "provisional" handwritten is also their on this shipping bill. Firm have not furnished the final assessed E.P copy of Shipping Bill 552 dt 5/10/2006. (iv) Further shipping bill No. 503012 date is stamped as 27th January, 1997 and is not dated 28.6.1995 as stated in your letter dated 10.7.2013 and on bill it is stated DEEC under provisional Book No. 109673 dated 31.8.1994. (v) In respect of Shipping Bill No. 1001006167 dated 23/12/1997 & S/Bill No. 1000176012 dated 25/08/1998 party has not been able to covert DBK S/Bill into DEEC S/BIII. DBK S/Bill cannot be accepted towards export fulfillment. (vi) Further DEEC book No. in shipping bill No. 552 dated 5/10/1996 & 503012 dated 27.11.1997 is different from that in shipping bill No. 1001006167 dated 23/12/1997 and 1000176012 dated 25/08/1998 vii) Firm has not provided logged DEEC book by concerned custom authority for export and import. 2. You are granted opp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 21.02.2006, (v) an opportunity of personal hearing was not granted and therefore aforesaid facts were not explained t to the Appellate Authority 3.2 The Petitioner has prayed that: (i) the Quantity Based Advance License No. P/K/1522804 dated 31.08.1994 be closed; (ii) appropriate orders be passed for stay of DEL orders. 4. A report was called RA, Moradabad. RA, Moradabad vide their letter dated 18.02.2014 furnished its comments in which they have informed that the Petitioner has only deposited Customs Duty of Rs. 14,403/- and interest of Rs. 23,765/-. 5. The Petitioner was granted personal hearing on 10.03.2022 which was attended by Shri PC Pattnaik, Advocate of the Petitioner. He asked for one week time for submission of documents. The Petitioner vide letter dated 16.03.2022 furnished copies of seven shipping bills out of which two bills Nos. 1000150579 dt 20.07.1998 & 1000118881 dt. 03.06.1998 are outside the EOP and bill Nos. 1000176012 & 1001006167 are in respect of DBK 6. I have gone through the records and the submissions made by the Petitioner. It is observed that out of seven shipping bills, the dates of two bills are outside the 6. EOP and the P....