2025 (3) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....' and filed Bill of Entry No. 194755 dated 21.02.2007, claiming the Benefits of Notification No.32/1997-Cus dated 01.04.2007, which provides for exemption on imports for execution of export order. The Appellant sought permission for jobbing operation by following the procedure as per condition(v) of Notification No. 32/ 1997-Cus read with Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 and as part of the procedure, sample were drawn by Export Inspection Agency (EIA) for mandatory testing. Thereafter as per the certificate dated 27.06.2007, it was found that the imported goods were contaminated with 'Nitrofuran Metabolite AHD' and the said goods could not be exported or used for H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e letter dated 22.05.2007 issued by Export Inspection Agency, Cochin confirming that on test it is found to be contaminated with 'Nitrofuran Metabolite AHD-8.O ug/kg'. The Learned counsel also drew our attention to the letter dated 30.11.2017, where an attempt was made by the Appellant to conduct retest of the imported goods and to export the same seeking extension of time for complying with the export obligation. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the impugned order, where the Adjudicating authority, while dropping the penal proceedings held that imposing penalty is unwarranted because there is no failure on the part of the Appellant to export goods as per the conditions. Learned counsel also challenged the power of the Joint Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... than 3 years since the import. The appellate authority found that the party could not re-export the balance quantity of squids (215.07 MTs imported less 56.42 MTs re-exported) on account of the stringent conditions imposed on Indian seafood exporters by the European Union countries. From these findings of the lower authorities, it would appear that the plea of the party that they were unable to discharge export obligation due to reasons beyond their control has been accepted. It is on the ground of violation of condition (iii) of Notification No. 32/97-Cus. ibid by the appellants that the lower authorities have demanded duty from them. This condition reads thus: "that the goods are utilized only for the discharge of export obligation and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndia Ltd. v. Cannanore Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. [2002] 5 SCC 54." 7. In the present case, the Appellant sought permission for destruction of the goods and had not proceeded for disposal of the goods to demand customs duty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s BPL Display Devices Ltd., held as follows:- "We are of the view that no material distinction can be drawn between the loss on account of leakage and loss on account of damage. The words 'for use' used in similar exemption Notification have also been construed by this Court earlier in the State of Haryana v. Dalmai Dadri Cement Ltd., 1987 (Suppl) SCC 679 to mean 'intended for use'. According to this decision object of grant of exemption was only to debar those import....