2000 (2) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... After hearing his submission and noting that the applicants are located permanently at Ludhiana. Permission was accorded and the appeal was heard. 2. Ld. Counsel submits that the Addl. Collector in the impugned order held that as per the evidence discussed above, since the export goods have not been manufactured out of 100% acrylic fibre the benefit of exemption Notification No. 116/88 is not applicable to the imported goods and therefore the appellants are required to pay import duty of Rs. 7,29,023.05. The Collector therefore confirmed this demand and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the appellants. 3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants submitted two shipping bills covering the export of acrylic knitted cap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the manufacture of exported goods is 100% Polyacrylonitrile; that the test report of SASMIRA dated 10-1-89 gives composition as 100% Acrylic; that the goods were 100% acrylic fibre; that the Dy. Chief Chemist's report was based on visual examination and, therefore cannot be relied upon; that the request for cross-examination of the Asst. Collector, Deputy Chief Chemist, Textile Committee and Examiners of SASMIRA and Shri Jacob Cherian on whose evidence, the department relied upon, was not accepted. After careful consideration of the submissions made, the Collector held as indicated above. 4. Shri B.B. Gujral, ld. Advocate submits that the appellants are regular exporters; that the appellants had totally fulfilled their export obligatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9-6-1978 as amended from time to time and (4) in the event of the firm's failure to fulfill the export obligation within the prescribed time limit, the bond would be enforced and the shortfall in the export obligation would be adjusted against their future AU/REP entitlements. The licence holder would also pay to the customs authorities the duty on the proportionate quantity of the material corresponding to the products not exported. The above action would be without prejudice to any other action that might be taken against the licence holder under the provisions of Import Trade Control Regulations. The Addl. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports in para 7 held that "In view of the foregoing, it is observed that M/s. Raja Imports & Expor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the licensing provision had discharged the appellants from the allegation levelled against them, therefore, the Tribunal should also do the same and prays that the appeal may be allowed. 6. Shri Mewa Singh, ld. SDR submits that there was report of the Dy. Chief Chemist and SASMIRA; that the report showed that the goods presented for export were made out of old and used fibre acrylic as well as blended yarn. He submits that normally the imported goods are required to be used in the export product. In the instant case, the appellants had imported new virgin acrylic fibre. He submits that a look at the DEEC Book will show that they were required to export 100% acrylic fibre as against that they presented the goods which were manufactured....