AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 144
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut Tannin', the same will be exported to the supplier at Indonesia and availed the duty free concession under the Notification No:32 of 1997, dated 01.04.1997. 3. As per the Customs Department Notification No:32 of 1997, to avail the concession, the importer has to ensure the following conditions:- "(i) that the goods are imported for execution of an export order placed on the importer by the supplier of the goods for jobbing. (ii) that the goods so imported, including resultant products, are re-exported to the supplier of the goods or to any other person which the said supplier may specify within six months, provided that the wastage arising during the process of jobbing, as determined in terms of SION norms published vide P.N.No.2(P.N)/1997-2002 and to where such SION norms for resultant product has not been published, the satisfaction of Asst.Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise shall be disposed off in the manner as may be specified by them. (iii) that the goods are utilized only for the discharge of export obligation and no part there of shall be sold, loaned, transferred or otherwise used or disposed off. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the importers to take advantage of the Notification illegally was found and therefore, the importers were called upon to show cause as to why:_ (a) the duty of Rs. 20,12,62,829/- not paid against 150 bills of Entry listed in Annexure 1 under Customs Notification No.32/97 should not be demanded and recovered from them under proviso to Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. (b) interest as applicable should not be demanded under Section 28(AB) of the Customs Act 1962. (c) the betel nuts imported vide Bills of Entry listed in the Annexure-1 under Customs Notification 32/97 totally valued at Rs. 19,80,27,722/- should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 11 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (d) penalty should not be imposed on M/s APP Enterprises under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 for their act of omission/commission made the imported betel nuts liable for confiscation." 8. To the above said show cause notice, dated 20.03.2008, the importers replied vide letter dated 09.01.2009. After considering the explanation and records, the order-in-original No.9652/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Rupees Ten Crores only) within eight weeks from today and the other appellants Shri Dwarka Prasad Parekh and Shri Vinod Agarwal shall make deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- each (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) within 8 weeks from today. All the parties shall make compliance on 9.5.2012. Subject to compliance, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of balance amounts during pendency of the appeals." 11. Final Order Nos.513 to 515 of 2012 was passed on 9.05.2012 by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal dismissing the appeals on the ground that the appellant failed to pay the provisions to Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 read with stay order Nos.203 to 205 of 2012, dated 7.03.2012. The importer firm and its partners, being aggrieved, had approached the High Court by filing W.P.Nos.23799, 23800 and 23801 of 2012. The above three writ petitions along with similar writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench of this Court and the same got disposed of on 30.10.2013 holding that the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellant Tribunal, in terms of Section 35D of the Customs Act 1962 or Section 129E of the Customs Act, the appealable in terms of Section 35G o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....after the jobbing work were exported in compliance with all statuary procedures and norms. Hence, the allegation of misuse or diversion of the imported goods is ill conceived. Moreso, when the identical allegation been held disproved by the CESTAT, Chennai in respect of the order-in-original No.7286 of 2008 dated 5.03.2008. It is also contented by the learned counsel that the demand made by invoking the extended period is clearly unsustainable. The bill of entry pertaining to the period from 13.2.2004 to 26.12.2005. Whereas the show cause notice was issued only on 20.03.2008. Therefore, the action against importers is hopelessly barred by limitation. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the revenue submitted that the material collected during the investigation and visit to the importers' factory had clearly established that the goods imported under 144 bills of entry from 13.2.2004 to 26.12.2005 were not utilised for the export purpose under the Notification No.32/97 dated 1.4.1997. The goods were diverted in the local market and the records were manipulated as if after conversion into tannin the resultant waste were destroyed as per the provisions of Notification No.32/97. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to 903 of 2008 dated 19.08.2008 which is in respect of six bill of entries. In connection with consonance with reach the source pending the investigation of the past transaction of the importer. Hence, the facts of this case which is out come of thorough investigation at the factory and business premises of the importers vis-à-vis scientific report regarding efficacy of tannin extracted from inferior quality of bill needs requires different treatment of appreciating the evidence. The contention of the importer that the present appeals are in continuous of the earlier departmental appeals in C.M.A.Nos.1224 to 1227 of 2010 is not whole correct. 17. The primary objection raised by the importers/appellants that the demand is barred by limitation and the extension period is not applicable to the facts of the case, is also incorrect, since the bill of entry in question pertains to the period from 13.02.2004 to 26.12.2005. The show cause notice was issued, after the investigation and the collected documents were found incriminating. Having noticed that the customs duty had been forgone due to wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts, the show cause notice was issued on 20.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erstanding, the relevant portion is extracted below:- 31.6. In the context it is relevant to mention that in terms of Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, an exporter is required to make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of the contents of such Shipping Bills. However, in the instance case, in contrast to this express statutory provision M/sAPP Enterprises while filing the relevant Shipping Bills deliberately made an untruthful declaration in the Shipping Bills by suppressing the Job work code 20 and other particulars as required under job work exports. It is also relevant to mention that in the electronic processing of export documents in the EDI System, it is mandatory on the part of exporter/importer to furnish correct information. This is because the documents are processed in the electronic system without manual intervention. Wilful suppression of material information would disable the system to pick up inbuilt system interventions and it would not be possible for the Department Officials to co-relate and detect deviations and compliance regarding conditions of relevant Notification or the prescribed procedure thereto. As a matter of fact wilful suppre....