TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce having been received from Joint Chief Controller of Import & Export, a show cause notice on 25th March, 1989 was issued by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Kandla for confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) of the Act. The respondent was also asked to show cause why short charged customs duty of Rs. 2,94,42,867/- should not be recovered since the goods had been cleared at NIL rate of duty claiming the benefit of Customs Notification No. 208 of 1981. It may here be stated that on a bond being executed, the goods in question were in fact allowed to be exported to Russia. 4.On 22nd October, 1990, the Collector of Customs, Kandla, ordered confiscation of goods under Section 113(d) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs. As regards the recovery of short duty, the Collector observed that the counsel for the respondent had submitted that Collector of Customs, Kandla, had no jurisdiction to demand duty for the goods imported through Bombay. The Collector agreed with this contention but added that even otherwise Notification No. 208/1981 exempted the goods unconditionally from import duty. The demand of duty was, therefore, dropped. 5.The decision of the Collector of Customs,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Act for recovering duty of Rs. 2,94,42,867/- under Section 28(1) of the Act read with proviso to the said Section. After giving an opportunity to the respondent of being heard, on 28th January, 1994, the Collector of Customs, Bombay ordered confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 crore under Section 112(a) and further ordered payment of duty of Rs. 2,94,42,867/-. 7.The said decision of the Collector was challenged before the CEGAT. On a difference of opinion with regard to the question as to whether the extended period of limitation of five years could be invoked in the present case, the matter was referred to a third Member. The third Member agreed with the Judicial Members and came to the conclusion that there was no wilful suppression on the part of the respondent and, therefore, the extended period of limitation did not apply. The order of the Collector of Customs was, accordingly, set aside. Hence, this appeal. 8.After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that in view of the decision of this Court in M.J. Exports' case (supra) there can be no doubt that any item which was imported under OGL which fell in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....olicy is likely to affect exports adversely may be considered by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Para 23 : In matters relating to export, as well as the interpretation of export policy and procedures, the person concerned may address the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi for necessary advice. Any interpretation of the export policy given in any other manner or by any other person will not be binding on the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, or in law." 10.It is, however, contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that notwithstanding the aforesaid decision of this Court, in the present case the Exemption Notification No. 208/1981 does not contain any condition that exemption will not be granted if the goods imported are not used in India. The notification of exemption has been issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act. The heading of the Schedule indicates that the exemption relates to life saving drugs or medicines as well as to life saving equipments. Just as this Court in M.J. Exports' case has observed that inherent in the import for life saving drugs or medicines as per List 2 of Appendix is the condition that the good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f customs duty. It is contended by Mr. Andhyarujina that the bill of entry does not require the importer to indicate the purpose for which the goods were being imported. That may be so but when in law benefit of exemption notification can only be availed of if the goods are to be used in India, then by claiming the exemption what is given out to the customs authorities is that the goods are not going to be exported. That was a suppression of correct fact, namely, that in fact the goods were to be exported. If this fact had been known, import duty would have been levied and benefit of exemption notification would not have been allowed. It is to be seen that when the imported items were sought to be exported merely within two months of the import, the goods were detained at Kandla. The customs authorities were, therefore, quite clear in their mind that such life saving equipments when imported under the OGL could not be re-exported. This was the correct position in law as has been upheld by this Court. If at the time of import on 19th October, 1988, it had been known that the goods imported are not to be used in India but are to be exported, then the benefit of exemption notification....