TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 900
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....well as penalties of Rs.5,21,80,330/- both under Section 112(a) and 114A for alleged violation of actual user conditions in respect of eight numbers of imports made through DFIA (Duty Free Import Authorization) and 10 numbers of imports through AA (Advance Authorization) respectively for the period from June 2007 to June 2008 and April 2007 to June 2008 by the Commissioner vide his above noted order, while adjudicating show cause notice dated 08.12.2008, is assailed before this forum by the importer appellant. 2. Fact of the case, in a nutshell, is that M/s. Tejus having IEC No.349001499 had obtained DFIA from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and AA for importation of polyester filament yarn (PFY) (upto 250 denier) and tex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i, reported in 2003 (151) ELT 254 (SC) that was also reiterated in the order passed by Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the cased of Commissioner of Customs vs. Jupiter Exports, reported in 2007 (213) ELT 641 (Bom.), wherein it was categorically held that once an advance licence was issued and not questioned by the licensing authority, the Customs authorities cannot refuse exemption on allegation that there was misrepresentation and if at all there was misrepresentation, it was for the licensing authority to take steps on that behalf and not the Customs authorities. Mr. Mihir Mehta further argued that the appellant is in a better footing in this case for the reason that twice vide their letters dated 16.09.2008 and 17.11.2008, As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot no jurisdiction to invoke the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, which cannot be attracted to the post importation conditions, as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi vs. CT Scan Research Centre (P) Ltd., reported in 2003 (155) ELT 3 (SC), for which the order passed by the Commissioner is required to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Special Counsel Mr. S.K. Mathur argued in support of the reasoning and rationality available in the order passed by the Commissioner and took us to para 3 and 21 of the show cause notice to justify that the truck drivers who were intercepted with the goods had confirmed that they were carrying imported goods from the port through the fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 138(B) of the Customs Act in examining and cross examining them. He also questioned the legality of imposition of simultaneous penalty under Section 112(a) and 114(A) of the Customs Act as well as confirming the redemption fine without goods being available for seizure. 6. We have gone through the appeal paper book, written notes and additional written notes of submissions filed by the advisories, relevant provisions of law and case laws relied upon by the parties. At the outset, it can be said that going by the order-in-original it cannot be ascertained as to violation of which part of licence, viz., DFIA or AA, duty liability was fastened on the appellant as the provisions of both the schemes were not distinguished in the sai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the delinquent beyond all reasonable doubt and not upon the delinquent to establish that it/he is completely innocent. Be that as it may, the issue has been settled at the Hon'ble Apex Court level in the case of Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd., cited supra, that once advance licence was issued and not questioned by the licensing authority, which in the instant case was questioned at the instance of DRI but the allegations could not be substantiated, Customs authorities cannot refuse exemption on allegation of misrepresentation. It would be beneficial to reproduce the relevant para of Titan judgment for better clarity. Relevant part of para 13 of it reads:- "13. Once an ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uantity of 7,85,057 kg. to the local market leaving balance of 86250 kg., out of which 38880 kg. were seized by the DRI on 25.06.2008 and the remaining quantity of 47370 kg. were found lying the factory and as per the statement of the proprietor of the appellant firm, who himself is an engineer, TFY could not be made out from PFY, both of 80D/48F categorirs and that would establish that PFY imported by availing exemption was sold by the appellant to the local market without using the same in manufacture of finished goods of TFY. 7. However, going by the additional written submission filed by learned counsel for the appellant on 30.07.2025 that is also received much later by this office from the Registry, in para 4 and 5 of his written su....