TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ginal being No. KOL/CUS/COMMISSIONER/PORT/09/2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), whereby the adjudicating authority has confirmed a demand of Rs. 3,87,82,349/- and also imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000,00 and a penalty of Rs. 30,00,000 under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the appellant. 2. The appellant in the instant case has imported goods namely "Hot Rolled Alloy Steel Wire Rods in Coils", falling under Customs Tariff Item No 72279090 and "High Grade Zinc Ingot" falling under CTH 79011100 from China, vide 10 Nos. of Bills of Entry and under cover of 11 (eleven) Advance Authorizations issued by DGFT, Kolkata. The appellant availed the benefit of exemption Notification No. 18/2015-Cus dated 01-0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dutiable goods only and the same cannot be transferred or sold. Accordingly, the notice demanded duty for such duty free imports along with redemption fine and penalty and interest. 2.3. The Notice alleged that the appellant has incorrectly availed the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 18/2015-Cus dated 01-04-2015. It was also alleged that the appellant has exported goods which were manufactured out of domestically procured Non-Alloy Steel Wire Rods and Zinc Ingots, even before the Imports were commenced. It was further alleged that the goods which were exported, were classified under Heading No. 7217 of the Customs Tariff, as the said goods were Non-Alloy Steel in nature. It was also alleged that by the simple wire drawing pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orted materials were diverted to the domestic market in the form of finished goods. The firm did not seek Bond waiver, prior to importation and the firm deliberately mis-declared in the export declaration at the time of exports that the export goods were manufactured out of imported materials. 2.6. Directorate General of Foreign Trade, Kolkata in its Show Cause Notices mentioned above has asked to the Appellant show cause as to why the Advance Authorizations issued from the aforementioned files should not be cancelled abInitio under Section 9 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation Act) 1992; Fiscal penalty should not be imposed upon them for violation of the conditions of the Advance Authorizations and misuse of Advance Licensing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of imports and exports. In this regard, the appellant submits that they have correctly applied for Advance Authorization under SION No. C-504, which permits the import of High Carbon Steel Wire Rods (CTH 72279090) for manufacturing Galvanized Steel Stranded Wires. The DGFT granted these Advance Authorizations based on accurate disclosures and prescribed norms. Hence, there is no violation of the Policy as alleged in the impugned order. 3.2. The appellant submits that the FTP does not mandate that imported raw materials and exported finished goods must fall under the same tariff heading if the essential transformation in manufacturing is evident. The appellant submits that they have adhered to this principle, as Galvanized Steel Strande....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent adjudication and the demand is pre-mature and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 3.5. In support of the above view, the appellant relied on the following judgments:- A. 2002 (148) E.L.T. 1094 (Tri. - Bang.) (HYGRADE PALLETS LTD.-Versus-COMMISSIONER OF CUS., VISHAKHAPATNAM) EOU - Extension of time for installation of machinery beyond five years from date of licence - Request pending before DGFT who delaying decision pending adjudication proceedings - Matter remanded to adjudicating authority to keep matter pending till final decision on extension. B. 2006 (206) E.L.T. 1007 (Tri. - Bang.) (MOHAN ALUMINIUM (P) LTD.-Versus- COMMISSIONER OF CUS., BANGALORE) Demand - Export obligation under EPCG licence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is premature as the matter is still under consideration before the DGFT authorities, and a final decision regarding fulfilment of export obligations is yet to be made. 6.1. We agree with the submission made by the appellant that DGFT is the proper authority to decide the issues related to advance authorization. In the present case, we find that DGFT has already issued Show Cause Notice to the appellant on the same issue and the adjudication proceedings are still pending with DGFT. Accordingly, we hold that the present adjudication order is premature. 6.2. We have gone through the various decisions cited by the appellant. From the decisions on the issue, we find that Customs authorities can initiate investigation and issue notice on s....