I L t ) . ,*,*T;ffii:jllthu** Directorate General of Foreign Trade Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-l 10011. lllrls, val6. F. No.l1/389/2012-l3lECA.l I Dalte of Order : 7o October, 2013 Date of dispatch , Xl I al.l.t tj Narne of the Appellant Order appealed against Order-in-Appeal passed by ; 4, Opportunity 05.08.2013 which Mr. Prateek Patodi4 . IWs. Ashoka Multiyam Mills Ltd.(Appellant), has filed this appeal Kolkata, on 26* February,2013 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, against Order-in-Original No.02/36/021/00054/AM04/3064, dated 09.01.2013, passed by JI.DGFT, RA, Kolkata. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant firrn had obtained EPCG Authorization No.0230000380, dated 29.07.2003, for CIF value of Rs.37,96,220 for duty free import of Capital Goods wittr obligation to export the resultant product as specified in the license for FOB value of Rs.3,03,69,760 /- within stipulated export obligation period of 8 years from tlrc date of issue of the licence. Ttle firm was under obligation to submit export documents to the Licensing Authority showing fulfillment of export obligation, but they failed to do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice dated 15.09.2009 under Rule 7(i)ft) of FT (D&R) Act, 1992. Since, the turn did not submit the relevant export documents showing fulfillment of export obligation, the Adjudicating Authority in its Order-in-Original, dated 09.01.2013, imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000, in addition to payment of custom duty and interest, on the firm and its Directors under Section 1 1 (2) of the said Acl 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant preferred the present appeal on the grounds that they have fulfilled the export obligation within stipulated export period and export documents have been submitted to RA, Kolkata. They have requested to cancel the order, passed by Jt.DGFT, RAn Kolkata. I4s. Ashoka Multiyam Mills Ltd. 64', NICCO House 2 Hare Street Kolkata-700001. Order-in-Original No.02136102 I /00054 I AN10413064 dated 09.01.2013, passed by JI.DGFT, RA, Kolkata. Dr. Lalit B. Singhal Appellate Autliority & Add1. Director Geneml of Foreien Trade Order-in-Appeal of Personal Hearing (PlI) was granted to the appellant firm on was adjoumed to 09.09.2013 on the of the firm. He Director of the firm Page 1bf2
Transcript
I
L
t)
. ,*,*T;ffii:jllthu**Directorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-l 10011.
lllrls, val6.F. No.l1/389/2012-l3lECA.l I Dalte of Order : 7o October, 2013
Date of dispatch , Xl I al.l.t tjNarne of the Appellant
Order appealed against
Order-in-Appealpassed by ;
4, Opportunity
05.08.2013 whichMr. Prateek Patodi4
. IWs. Ashoka Multiyam Mills Ltd.(Appellant), has filed this appeal Kolkata, on26* February,2013 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation)Act, 1992, against Order-in-Original No.02/36/021/00054/AM04/3064, dated 09.01.2013,passed by JI.DGFT, RA, Kolkata.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant firrn had obtained EPCGAuthorization No.0230000380, dated 29.07.2003, for CIF value of Rs.37,96,220 for duty freeimport of Capital Goods wittr obligation to export the resultant product as specified in thelicense for FOB value of Rs.3,03,69,760 /- within stipulated export obligation period of 8years from tlrc date of issue of the licence. Ttle firm was under obligation to submit exportdocuments to the Licensing Authority showing fulfillment of export obligation, but theyfailed to do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice dated15.09.2009 under Rule 7(i)ft) of FT (D&R) Act, 1992. Since, the turn did not submit therelevant export documents showing fulfillment of export obligation, the AdjudicatingAuthority in its Order-in-Original, dated 09.01.2013, imposed penalty of Rs.5,00,000, inaddition to payment of custom duty and interest, on the firm and its Directors under Section1 1 (2) of the said Acl
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant preferred the present appeal onthe grounds that they have fulfilled the export obligation within stipulated export period andexport documents have been submitted to RA, Kolkata. They have requested to cancel theorder, passed by Jt.DGFT, RAn Kolkata.
I4s. Ashoka Multiyam Mills Ltd.64', NICCO House2 Hare StreetKolkata-700001.
Order-in-Original No.02136102 I /00054 I AN10413064dated 09.01.2013, passed by JI.DGFT, RA, Kolkata.
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Autliority &Add1. Director Geneml of Foreien Trade
Order-in-Appeal
of Personal Hearing (PlI) was granted to the appellant firm onwas adjoumed to 09.09.2013 on the of the firm.
HeDirector of the firm
Page 1bf2
I Ostated that tley have completed the export obligation within the stipulated time and the
required documents have been submitted to RA, Kolkata on 14.05.2013.
5. A factual report was called from RA, Kolkata. RA, Kolkata vide e-maii dated12.09.2013, has stated that based on documents submitted by the firm on 14.05.2013, it isseen that the firm has completed its export obligation. RA, Kolkata has confinnedfirlfillment of export obligation on the basis of ANF-58, copy of Shipping Bills and BRCssubmitted by the Appellant
6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers, vested in me under Section i5 of the ForeignTrade (Development & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:
OrderF. No.11/389/2012-13 Dated: 7u October, 2013
The Order-in-Original No. 021361021/00054/AM04/3064, dated 09.01.2013, passedby Jt.DGFT, RA, Kolkata is set aside and the case is remanded back to RA, Kolkata forde-novo examination. Appeliant is direcred to submit ali required
".Y:ty::, Kolkata.
4 ${. L.B.singhar)
f a AdAt Director General {f F oreign Tradel\Us. Ashoka Multiyarn Mills Ltd. l,/6A, NICCO House2 Hare StreetKolkata-700001.
Copy to: Mr.Agneshwar Sen Jt.DGFT, Kolkata for inforrnation and necessary action. , [-
nrftcn"-ffi'
( Munish Kurar )Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade
. ,rt . !.._iii.,
' -':1iit'
])h.. rltt
r'tl.,... 4,r3._
;f'
Page2,of 2
Govemment of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and IndustryDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-l10011.
IWs Berger Paints india Ltd.Berger House, 129 Park StreetKolkata-700017.
Order-in-Original No.ALS-G/02/241042/00002/AM05dated25.06.2012, passed by JI.DGFT, RA, Kolkata.
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Addl. Director General of Foreigrr Trade
Order-in-Apneal
. lr4/s Berger Paints India Ltd..(Appellant), Kolkata , has fi1ed this appeal on
6b August,2012 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Developmeut & Regulation)
Act, 1992, against Order-in-Original No. ALS-G/02124/042100002/ANI05, dated
25.06.2012, passed by Jt.DGFT, RA, Kolkata.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant furn had obtained Advance
Authorization No.0210064992, dated 27.05.2004, for CIF value of Rs'94J1,675 for duty fteeimport of items with obligation to export the resultant product, as specified in the licence forFOB value of Rs.2,09,71,200 /- within a stipulated period of 18 months ftom the date ofissue of the licence. The fimr was under obligation to submit export documents to the
Licensing Authority showing fulfillment of export obligation, but they failed to do so.
Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notioe dated 30.01.2012 under
Section 14 of Foreign Trade @&R) Act,1992 calling up on the Appellant firm to show cause
as to why penalty should not be imposed upon them. Since, the firm did not submit the
relevant export documents showing fulfrllment of export obligation, the AdjudicatingAuthority in its Order-in-Original, dated 25.06.2012 imposed penalty of Rs.94'71'000' inaddition to payment of custom duty and interest, on the flrm under Section 1 1(2) of the said
Act.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appeliant prefened the present appeal on
the grounds that they have fulfilled the export obligation within stipulated export period and
relevant export documents have been submitted to RA, Kolkata vide their letter dated
02.05.2007. They have requested to set aside the order, passed by JI'DGFT, RA' Kolkata.
4. Opportunity of Personal Hearing (PH) was granted to the appellant firm on
04.03.2013, 13.5.2013. Mr. J.M. Sharma" Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Mr.Gopal Agarwal and Mr'the PH on
tr
P,age I of 3
I'
Rahul Mandal, representatives of the firm aPPeared
a 13'05'20013. They aiso submitted written submissions before me. They informed that as- against the stipulated cIF value of Rs.94,7r,67s they have done imports of Rs.14,23,767. As
against this achral import, their export obligation works out to Rs.3r,s2,220 and they havealready completed deemed exports of value much more than the same. He informed that theyhave also submitted copies of ARE-3 forms before the RAs. They also informed that in theorder-in-Original in Para 5, it has been indicated that they have been given personal hearingsin 2008 and 2009 and these personal hearings can not be construed as personar hearing asthese are dates prior to issuance of Showcause Notice. It was enquired from the firn:whether in the ARE-3, Advance Authorization number or File number have been indicated.They rcquested to grant some more time for verification of this information. Next pH wasfixed on 31,07.2013 wherein Mr.Gopal Agarwar, Mr. Rahul Mandal and Mr. varun verma-appeared before me. They stated that i
(i) It is a case of deemed export for supplies to Eou and they have compreted exportobligation within the stipulated period of Advance Authorization. In respect of theAdvance Authorization dated, 2l .05.2004, they have made entire suppiies during2004-0s.
(ir) They have submitted ARE-3 in respect of tl,e supplies to RA, Korkata. These ARE-3have been duly attested by the central Excise Authority of tle recipient units.
(iii) They have original copies of the Central Excise invoices in respect of this AdvanceAuthorization.
(lv) As regards ARE-3 which did not bear advance authorization number or file number,they stated that as per para 4.12 ofHBp vol.1 2004-05, this requirement of indicatingAdvance Authorizafion number or file number was not there. They produced beforeme a copy of pam 4.72 from HBP stating that this requirement of indicating advanceauthorization number or file number exists under paru 4.12 in HBp vol.l, 2006-07.However, they stated that in spite of this, they have got original central Excisedocwnents which corroborates that these documents relates to Advance Authorizationdated 27.Q5'20Q4 only. They stated that Central Excise invoice clearly indicatesadvance authorization number as well as ARE-3 number. ARE-3 in tum indicatesclearly the relevant central Exoise invoice number. Hence, this can be clearly co-related.
(v) They informed that in spite of the fact that advance authorization number can beclearly co-related, as stated in pa.a (rg above, they have filed a request before pRCon 26.07.2073 for accepting these documents for discharge of export obligation.They requested thal they may be given 2-month time so that the decision of the pRCis also available.
5. Next PH was fixed on 07.10.2013. The Appellant firm vide its e-mail dated07.10.2013 submitted decision of pRC Meeting No.21lAM14, dated 17.09.2013. wherein ithas been decided to allow discharge after proper verification of export obligation against the
Ia excise invoices which bears Advance Authorization Number and co-related with ARE-3.
Decision of tle PRC committee is given as under:
The Committee deliberated the case at length and perused the document submitted bythe Jirm. The Committee noted that though Advance Authorization Number and FileNo. is not mentioned on ARE-3, however, the excise copy of invoices bears theAuthorization number under which goods were remowd for supply the same to EOIJunder ARE-3. And, the ARE-3 bears details of relevant invoice number and date etc.Therefore, it was decided to allow dischmge after proper veriJication of exportobligation against the excise invoices which bears Advance Authorization Numberand co-related with ARE-3.
6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers, vested ir me under Section 15 of the ForeignTrade (Development & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:
The Order-in-Original No. ALS-G/02124/0421000021AN105, dated 25.06.2012, passedby JI.DGFT, RA, Kolkata is set aside and the case is remanded back to "RA, Kolkata forde-novo examination in view of facts given in para 4 and 5 above. ,fuprtlht is directed tosubmit aI[ required documents to RA, Kolkata.
. L.B. Singhal)Addl. Director Gend F'oreign Trade
lWs. Merger Paints India Ltd.Berger House, 129 Park StreetKolkata-700017
Copy to:L Mr.Agneswar Sen, Jt.DGFT, Kolkata
2. MI.R.L. Meena" JI.DGFT, Kolkata
ol,lt-
t""I for information and necessary action.
t,
Qd,W
Page 3 of 3
O Government of lndiaMinistry of Commerce and IndustrYDirectorate General of Foreigrr TradeUdyog Bhavaq New Delhi-l 1001 1
lUn'N,l'toz"7-F. No.11/438/2011-12/ECA.I | ' - Dafe of Order :
' Date ofdispatch :
Name of the Appellant IWs. Pradeep Shetye Pvt. Ltd.,Pradeep Shetye House,
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade
Order-in-Apneal
This appeal was filed by lWs. Pradeep Shetye Plt. Ltd' (Appellant), Mumbai, on
21't February, 2012 tmder Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation)
Act, 7992, against Order-in-original No.03/02l002/00057/AN1-11, dated 10.03.2011,
passedby Jt.DGFT, RA, Mumbai.
2. The brief facts of the case we that the Appellant firm, had obtained Advance
Authorization No. 0310320572, dated 09.03.2005 for CIF value of Rs.26,67,600 for duty
fiee import of inputs with obligation to export the resultant product as specified in the license
for FOB value of Rs.54,00,000/- within stipulated export obligation period, The firm was
under obligation to submit export documents to the Licensing Authority showing fhlfillmentof export obligation, but they did not do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued a
show cause notise dated 22.a6.2010 under Section 14 to the firm and its Directors forinitiating penal action under Section II (2) of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992. Since, the firm did
not submit the relevant export docunents showing firlfillment of export obligation, ttreAdjudicating Authority in its Order-in-Original, dated 10'03'2011, imposed penalty ofRs.19,00,000/- on the firrn and its D ectors.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant preferred the present appeal on
the grounds that they have had obtained licence under no nolms category and imported2000 kg Iodine as against 2600 kg and effected export of 2000 kg Nitroxynil as applied.
Thereater, the Nomrs committee in its meeting held on 04.05.2005, fxed wastage norms forIodine as 0.94 kg for export of 1 kg Nitro>rynil against their calculation of 1.03 kg Iodine forexport of 1 kg Nitroxynil and disallowed 2no item of import i.e. DI Phenyle oxide which
resulted shortfall of 128 kg in their export obligation. They have all the original export
documents and they can submit the same. They have requested to remand back the case.
of Personal Hearing @H) was $anted to the Appellant on 25.04.2012,and no new evidence submitted in support
. *,i,,.,., il.' -,,.., I ,j,:!
.-rr- tt ' tl,l;,1_' r ' ::.
i.l i' : ':'l' '',1':'
,.,-:1.:, ti.'..
06.07.2012 but no
Page 1 of 2
a 5. I have examined complete facts of the case including submissions made by theAppellant along with the appeal. After examination of the facts of the case, I observe as
under:
As per Section 15 (1) of Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, anappeal has to be filed within a period of45 days from date of receiving of the order.The Appellate Authority has powers to condone any delay beyond this period of45days if sufficient reasons are shown for the delay, only if the appeal is filed within30 days after the expiry of the time limit of 45 days. However, beyond this period,i.e., 45 + 30 days, an appeal under Section 15 of Foreigrr Trade @evelopment &Regulation) Act, 1992 can not be entertained. In this case, Order-in-Original hasbeen issued on 10.03.2011 and the appeal has been filed on 21.02.2012. Hence,appeal has been filed beyond maximum permissible iimit of 75 days. Therefore,appeal can not be entertained under Section 15 (l) ofForeign Trade @evelopment &Regulation) Act,7992
The Appellant has not submitted proof of depositing penalty amount along with theirappeal. ln terms of provisions of Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment &Regulation) Act, 1992, no such appeal shall be entertained unless the amount ofpenalty or redemption charges has been deposited by the Appellant.
(iiD Appellant firm has failed to produce export documents showing fulfilknent of exportobligation. Appellant failed to produce these documents before AdjudicatingAuthority. It failed to produce the same before me even after being provided 3
opportunity of personal hearings.
6 I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the ForeignTrade @evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the following order:
Order
F. No. 1 1/43 8/20 1 1 -lzlECA-r Dated: 7* October 2013
The Order-in-orieinal No.03l02/002/000 57 /AM-1 1, .03.2011, passed by
(i)
(ii)
Jt.DGFT, Mumbai, is upheld and the appeal is dismissed onabove.
Order-in-OriginalNo. 08/01/002/037 / ANfO9E CA, dated. 28.10.2009passed by Jt.DGFT, Ahmedabad
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Addl. Director General ofForeisn Trade
Order-in-Anpeal
Name of the Appellant
Order appealed against
Order-In-AppealPassed by
lWs Asim Pharmachem Indusfties (Prop. Asim Chemicals Pvt Ltd.) has filed thisappeal on 25.06.2012 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation)Act, 1992) against Order-in-Original No. 08/01i002/037/AM09/ECA, dated 28.10.2009,passed by Jt.DGFT, Ahmedabad.
2, Ir4ls Asim Pharmachem Industries fProp. Asim Chemicals Pr.t Ltd.,) had obtained anAdvance License for Deemed Export No. 0810046209 dated 01.03.2005, for a CIF valueof Rs.19,59,389 (US$ 44633) for import of (i) Iodine 2250 kg. (ii) Dimethyl Sulfoxide1230 kg; and (iii)Methanol 2010 kg with an obligation to export 3000 kg of TrimethlSulphoxinium Iodine for FOB value ofRs.21,69,000 (US$ 49805). Since the firm failed tosubmit original export documents evidencing fulfillrnent of export obligation, the firm wasdeclared Defaulter vide Defaulter Circular No.20lAM09 dated 05.09.2008. A Show CauseNotice dated 25.11.2008 was issued under Section 14 for action under Section 11 (2) ofFT(D & R) Act, 1992. The firm neither submitted the documents nor availed Personalhearing @H). The Adjudicating Authority in its above said order imposed penalty ofRs.58,78,167i- onthe firm under Section 13 of Foreign Trade (D& R)Act, 1992.
3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, the firm prefened an appealstating that they have evidence/proof of 100% fulfillment of export obligation and thereis no question of non-fulfillment or partial fulfillment. Further, the firm wished not to be
Page I of2
heard in person and requested to decide the case on merit,
o
4. The appeal has been examined. The Appellant firm's appeal, though dated04.04.201I, has been received in this oflice on 25.06.2012. The Appellant firm in itsubmission has admitted that it had received the Order-in-Original on 21.11.2009Accordingly, appeal was to be filed within 45 days from 21.11.2009 i.e. by 05.01.2010.Under Section 15 (1) of Foreign Trirde @evelopment & Regulation) Ac! 1992, the delaycan be condoned maximum up to 30 days i.e. up to 04.02.2010, whereas in this caseappeal has been frled on 25.06.2012. Hence, there is a delay of more than 2 years in filingthe appeal. As per Section 15 (1) of Foreigrr Trade (Development & Regulation) Aot,1992, an appeal has to be filed within a period of 45 days from date of receiving of theorder. The Appellate Authority has power to condone any delay beyond this period of 45days if sufficient reasons are shown for the delay, only ifthe appeal is filed within 30days after the expiry of the time limit of 45 days. However, if appeal is filed after 75days of the receipt of order i.e.,45+30 days, an appeal under Section 15 ofForeign Trade@evelopment & Regulation) Act, can not be entertained.
5. The Appellant has not submitted proof of depositing penalty amount along withtheir appeal. In terms of provisions of Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment &Regulation) Act, 1992, no such appeal shall be entertained unless the amount ofpenalty orredemption charges has been deposited by the Appellant.
6. I, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers vested in me under Section 15 ofthe ForeignTrade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the following order;
Order
F. No. 1 l/395/2012-13 IECA-I Dated: 1l' October, 2013
The Order-in-Orisinal No. 08101 /0021037 / AM09IECA 28.10.2009, passed
by JI.DGFT, Ahmedabad, is upheld and appeal is dismissed on s as given in para 4and 5 above.
Order-in-Original No. 34lT.5/4/AM1 0IECA/1 95 Idated26.07.2010, passed by JI.DGFT, Vadodara
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Addl. Director General ofForeign Trade
0rcler-in-Appeal
IWs. Rubex Intemational, Vadodara (Appellant) has filed this appeal on156 September, 2010 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development &Regulation) Act, 7992, against Order-in-original No.34lF.5/4/AMl0lECdl 95 1, dated26.07 .2010, passed by Jt.DGFT, Vadodara.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant firm had obtained AdvanceAuthorization No.3038228 dated 22.03.1996 for CIF value of Rs.3,98,008 ruS$ 12516) forduty free import of inputs with obligation to export the resultant product as specified in thelicense for FOB value of Rs.23,12,784l- within stipulated export obligation period. The firmwas under obligation to submit export documents to the Licensing Authority showingi:lfillment of export obligation, but it did not do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authorityissued a show cause notice dated 02.07.2009 under Section 14 to the firm and its Parbrers forinitiating penal action under Section 11 (2) of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992. Since, the firm didnot submit the relevant export documents showing firlfillment of export obligation, the
Adjudicating Authority in its Order-in-Original, dated 26.07.2010, imposed penalty ofRs.3,98,0081 on the firm and its Directors.
3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant preferred the present appeal onthe grounds that they could not import any material under this licence. Hence, Iicence notutilized.
4. Opportunity of Personal Hearing (PH) was granted to the Appellant on 22.03.2012,
07.06.2012,13.07.2012 urd25.05.2012 but no one appeared in the PH.
5. I have examined complete facts of the case including submissions made by the
Appellant along with the appeal. The Appellant has vide its letter dated 25.01.2013,
submitted a letter No.S/10-Misc-01/2008-09 Lic, dated 10.08.2012, issued by O/o the
Commissioner of Customs (Export). New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai, showing
that Licence No. 3038228, dated 22.03.1996, issued to lv{/s Rubex Inte.mational, Vadodara, is
,;-Haoe
lj
not registered with them.
1of2
O 6 l,therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section i5 of the Foreign
Trade (Development & Regulation) A ct, 7992, as amended, pass the following order:
Order
F. No.l l CA-I Dated: 1l* October, 2013
The Order-in-original No.34ff.5l4AlMlOlECN1951, dated 26.07.2010, passed by
Jt.DGFT, RA, Vadodarar is set aside and the case is remanded back RA, Madodara for de-
novo consideration. Appellant is advised to produce required to lRA. Vadodara.
coov to :Jt.DGFT, Vadodara, for informalion and necessary action.
Asr
Page 2 of 2
[:
oGovemment of India
Ministry of Commerce and IndustrYDirectorate General of Foreign Trade
Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi
lVoSt'Lt-P3F'F.No.l1/108/201l-lzlBc{-l I Date 5f Order : 1lu October,2013
Name of the Appellant
Order appealed against
Order-ln- AFpealPassed by
Date of dispatch: /.{ t o l.W t\I\#s. IWI Cryogenic Yapoizatibn Systems (India)Pvt.LtdA-36, Ghanshyam Nagar SocietY No'2GIDC Road, Manjalpur
Vadodara-39O 01 1.
Order-in-OriginalNo. 3410 1 /002/00 I 28/AM 1 | I 5207, dated 08.02.20 i 1
passed by JI.DGFT, Vadodara.
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authotity &Addl. Director General ofForeign Trade
Order-in-Appeal
lvf/s IWI Cryogenic Vaporization Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd has filed this appeal on
31.05.2011 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act' 1992)
against Order-in-Original No. 34/011002/00128/AM 1115207, dated 08.02'2011' passed byJt.DGFT, Vadodara.
2. Ms IWI Cryogenic Yapoization Systems (India) Pvt.Ltd, had obtained an Advance
License No. 3410005204, dated 09.09.2002, for import of"5670 kgs of Aluminum lngots"as specified in the Authorization for CIF value of Rs.66,67,920 (US$ 13608) with an
obligation to export "5400 kgs of Vaporizer made of Aluminum "for FOB value ofRs.8,9i,800 (US$ 1S200) within the period of 18 months from the date of issue of the
Authorization. The firm had submitted Authorization along with certain export documents
on 13.02.2003 and based on these documents, export obligation discharge certificate was
issued on 28.02.2003. At that time, the facts of provisionally assessed Shipping Bill didnot come into notice ertoneously and t}re same was pointed out by Controller of AidAccounts & Audit Memo No.6, dated 13.02.2008, issued to the RA conveying an objection
that Shipping Bill submitted by the firm was not finally assessed by the respective Custom
Authority. Therefore, the original EP copy of Shipping Bill was retumed to the firm vide
RA's letter dated 18.02.2008 asking to get Shipping Bills finally assessed and resubmit.
The appellant firm did not submit finally assessed Shipping Bills in original. Therefore,
adjudication process was initiated by issuing show cause notice dated 23.08.2010.
Since the firm failed to submit original Advance Authorization, finally assessed Shipping
Bill, etc. towards fulfillment of export obligation, the Adjudicating Authority in its above
osaid order imposed fiscal penalty of Pls.66,67,920/- on the appellant firm and its Directorsunder Section 13 ofForeign Trade ( D& R) Act, 1992.
3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, the firm preferred an appealstating that they had fulfilled the export obligation within the export obligation period andsubmitted export documents to the RA. On the basis of export documents submittedagainst the licences involved in this case, the RA had issued export obligation dischargecertificate vide their letter dated 28.02.2003. The appellant has also claimed that they hadnot made any import so far against the licence. They submiued original Shipping Bills toICD Dashrath, Vadodara for final assessment on 20.06.2008 which has not yet beenretumed to them by the Customs.
4. Opportunity of Personal Hearing @FI) was granted to the Appellant on 05.08.2011which was postponed to 05.09,2011, 22.09.2A11. Shri B.B. Purohit, AuthorizedRepresentative of the appellant firm appeared for hearing on 22.09.2011 and requested forfurther adjournment. Accordingly, next PH was granted on 08. 12.201 1. Further PHs weregranted on 20.01.2012, 23.02.2012, 01.03.2012, 29.03.2012, 03.05.2012, 04.06.2012 butno one appeared and no new evidence in support ofthe appeal submitted.
5. The appeal has been examined and I observe as under:
(D The Appellant firm's appeal, dated 26.05.2011, has been received in this office on31.05.2011. The Appellant firm in it submission has admitted that it had receivedthe Order-in-Original on 10.02.2011. Accordingly, appeal was to be filed within45 days ftom 20.02.2011. Under Section 15 (l) of Foreign Trade (Development &Regulation) Act, 1992, the delay can be condoned maximum up to 30 days,whereas in this case appeal has been filed on 31.05.2011. Hence, appeal has beenclearly filed after 75 days of reoeipt of order. As per Section 15 (1) of ForeigTrade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, an appea! has to be filed within a
period of 45 days from date of receiving of the order. The Appellate Authority has
power to condone any delay beyond this period of45 days if sufficient reasons
are shown for the delay, only if the appeal is filed within 30 days afterthe expiryof the time limit of 45 days. However, if appeal is filed after 75 days of thereceipt of order i.e., 45+30 days, an appeal under Section 15 of Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, can not be entertained.
(il) The Appellant has not submitted proof of depositing penalty amount along withtheir appeal. In terms of provisions of Section 15 of the Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, i992, no such appeal shall be entertained unless
the amount ofpenalty or redemption charges has been deposited by the Appellant.
(iiD Appellant has stated that it has not utilizedunutilized licence or certificate from customsAuthorized representative appeared in the PHreouired documents will be submitted buthave not been submitted.
iir'.
-
o6. I, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers vested in me under Section 15 ofthe ForeignTrade (Development & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:
Ordertot
F. No. I 1/i95l2011-12/EcA-I Dated: 1 lfr october, 2013
The Order-in-OriginalNo.34l01/002/00128/AM 1115207, dated 0[.02.p011, passed
by JI.DGFT, Vadodara, is upheld and appeal is dismissed on gtounds ah ginFf in para 5above. {,ryk(Dr. L&t' Bl Singhal )
Ir,t/s. IWI Cryogenic Vaporization Systems (India) Prt.Ltd ^ |A-36, Ghanshyam Nagar Society No,2 u
I ",GIDC Road, Manjalpur
Vadodara-3 90 01 1 .
Addl. Director General of Forqlgn Trade
Page 3 of3
Copy to: JI.DGFT, Vadodara - for information and necessary action.
Udaipur-31300i (Appellant) ;;?;i; Gt upp"a oo 9* M*tti, 20i2 under Section 15 of the Foreip
Trade (Devetopment & need;;t ert, f sii, against Order-in-original No.030200200095/AM06' dated
18.01.2012, passed by JI.DGFT' Mumbai.
z. lvlis. Rajasthan Peto synlhetics Ltd. G-2, Tirupati Balaji Complex otp;'-{:fi"hoo1' Panchwati'
Udaipw-313001, obtained Aivance Authorizalion No. 0003-02213+, dated 15.04'1998, for import of
tiX?iskr p"rypropylene "r'ipt;
liilr+s z5Okgs of lglypronvlene Dle-d-9li.es;. (iii)26'250kgs of U'V'
ii"t1...l*a ti"lsi.-sso kgs oi ipinrinish oilfor a CIF Value of Rs.2,72,7341- with obligation to export
3500.00 kgs of Polypropyrr* r,iJtinru-ent Yam 2700 Denet for FoB value of Rs'4'17'000/- (us$
10425.00), to be completed *itii" rr6"f"t"a u p"to^d: Ll per condition.of the Licence, the appellant firm
was required to submit "*p;l;;#;s, towards fulfil1aent of stipulated export obligation within two
months fiom the date or expiry of tfr" ruid obligation period, but the firm failed to do so' Since the firm
failed to submit the pr"r"riU"l'"xfott a""r."ttitfro*tg firlfillment of export obligation' the Adjudicating
arift"ti y ltt lir above said Oa"r""tp"tJ , p.oaty of it.t,34,000/- on the firm and its Directors under
Section 13 of Foreign Trade (D& R) Act" 1992'
3. Aggrieved by the above said order-in-original, the appeflant firm prefened the appeal stating that
the Advance Authorization f..fo. 000l0ZZfl4, da1"i tS.O+.fSfd, issued to the firm has not been utilized as
they have made no irrrport uguin.i tt is licence. The appellant firm has stated that due to company becoming
sick and closed, it has no lnan powel and resources to tlace out the licence and to submit any lecords/details
to prove that import was not made under this licence'
4,opportunityofpersonalhearingwasgranted.totheappellantfirmon30.09'2013wheteinMr. K. Sukumaran, cM(A), "pp.*;t;;?"t; -".- H" informed that the Advance Authorization was issued
for CIF value of Rs.2,72,73i.'i" into.tn.a that against this licence no import has taken place and the
licence has not been utilized. He informed that this company became-si-ck and the company was.not in
"p.."ti"". ri. further informed tt ut thoogh the licence wai issued in 1998, company had become sick' no
funds were available, tn"r" *"." l"tiour"tabour probiems and in view of these factors, they frled BIFR
.ppii."ti". in 1999 itself. li.o.", tft. fi"tnce was not utilized. He stated that because of problems in the
company, this licence is not ti"iAt . However, he obtained information from O/o of the Commissioner of
customs @xport), Mumbai *o.t nrr-a". offiqe of the commissioner giQillom; (Export), RTI cell'
^\ ) ,,', ;, ;r'. Pagelof2qu/tr/ - ''i\I\ I
New custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai4O0 001, vide order No.RTlA -Ep-110/2012,ilated 02.08.2012, passed by Shri Arnit Bhashker, CPIO & Asstt. Commissioner of eustoms @xport)informed that captioned Licence No.03022134, dated 15.04.1998, issued to IWs Rajasthan Petro SyntheticsLtd. 4A not been registered in that Custom House and no Bond/BG is pending against above mentionedlicencFof Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. He stated that he had produced this information to thisDirectorate vide its letter, dated 09.08.2012. However, this letter is not found on record of file. Heproduced a copy of this letter and a copy of the Order from Commissioner of Customs @xport) in the PH.
5. I have examined the complete facts of tle case including written submissions made by the Appellantin the appeal and submissions made in the personal hearing. Appellanl has submitted information oUtaineaby the Appellant firm from O/o Commissionei of Customs(Export), Mumbai, vide Order dated 02.08.2012,as given in para 4 above, clearly stating that the aforesaid Advance Authorizalion has not been utilized andno Bond/BG is pending against above mentioned licence of Rajasthaa Petro synthetics Ltd.
6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade@evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the followirg order:
Order
F. No.1 l/1/2012-13/ECA-I Dated: l?tr October, 2013
The Order-in-Original No. 030200200095/AM06, dated 18.01.2012. passed by , Mumbai,is set aside and case is remanded back to RA, Mumbai for de-novo examination.submit all required documents to RA, Mumbai, within a period of one month.
Udaipur-3t:00i, obtained Advance Authorization No. OOO:bZZ1S4, dated 15.04.1998, for import of
G)30'Z8tes Polypropylene chips; (iD1a5.250kgs of l9b'gropvlene !rea-!]ri.rs;. (iii)26'250kes of U'V'
ifutUr.tlatta tivl3f.3SO kgs oiSpinFinish Oiifor a CIF Value of Rs.2,72,7341- with obligation to export
SSO0.OO kg, oi iolipropyl"n" Multifilu-ent Yam 2700 Denier for FOB value of Rs.4,17,000/- (US$
10425.00),- to U, ,o-pt.t"a within stipulated a period. As per condition-of the Licenc.e, the appellant firm
*, ,"quitra to submit export docurnents, towards fulfrllment of stipulated export obligation within two
months ftom the date of exprry of the said obligation period, but the frm failed to do so' since the frrm
failed to submit the prescribed export documents showing firlfilknent of export obligation, the Adjudicating
Authorrty in its above said order imposed a penalty ofRs.8,34,000/- on the firm and its Directors under
Section 13 ofForeign Trade (D& R) Act, 1992'
3. Aggrieved by the above saicl order-in-original, the appellant frm preferred the appeal stating that
the Advance Authorization No. 0003022134, datea 15.04.19i8, issued to the firm has not been utilized as
they have made no import against this licence. The appellant firm has stated that due to company beco:ning
sick and closed, it has no man powel and resources to fface out the licence and to submit any records/details
to prove that import was not made under this licence'
4'opportunityofpersonalhearingwasgranted.totheappellantfirmon-30.09.2013whereinfrrrr. f. iii.-*ri, GMaA), appeared beiore me.- He informed that the Advance Authorization was issued
for CIF value of Rs.2,72,734, He informed.that against this licence no import has taken place and the
licence has not been utilized. He informed that thii company became sick and the company was . not in
op.rutioo, He further informed that though the licence wai issued in 1998, company had become sick, no
funds were available, there were serious-labour problems and in view of these factors, they filed BIFR
application in 1999 itself. Hence, the licence was not utilized. He stated..thatib€iause of ptoblems in the
+/ -' . "' t* *"
Page I or2
l\ g,sr'
' ,6ompany, this iicence is not traceable. However, he obtained information from O/o of the Commissioner of'; Customs (Export), Mumbai under RTI Act. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (E"xport) RTI Cell,
,! N"* Custom tiouse, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001, vide Order No.RTIA-EP-110/2012, dated' 02.08.2012, passed by Shd Amit Bhashker, CPIO & Asstt. Commissioner of Customs @xport) inforrred
that -rtioned Licence No.03022134, dated 15.04.1998, issued to IWs Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. has
not bEn registered in that Custom House and no Bond/BG is pending agailst above mentioned licence ofRajasthan P-etro Synthetics Ltd. He stated that he had produced this information to this Directorate vide its
letter, dated 09.08.2012. However, this letter is not found on record of file. He produced a copy of this
letter and a copy of the Order from Commissioner of Customs (Export) in the PH.
5. I have examined the complete facts of the case including written submissions made by the Appellant
in the appeal and submissions made in the personal hearing. Appellant has submitted information obtained
by the Appellant firm from O/o Commissioner of Customs@xport), Mumbai, vide Order dated 02.08.2012,
as given in para 4 above, clearly stating that the aforesaid Advance Authorization has not been utilized and
no Bond./BG is pending against above mentioned licence of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.
6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade
@evelopment & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:
Order
F . No.l 1 1212012- I 3IECA-I Dated: 17'o October, 2013
The Order-in-Original No. 030200200095/AM06, dated i8.01.2012. passed by , Mumbai,
is set aside and case is remanded back to RA, Mumbai for de-novo examination.
submit all required documents to RA, Mumbai, within a period of one month.is directed to
. L.B. Singhal)Addl. Director General F oreign Trade
Mr. B.R. Goyal,Ex-DirectorIWs. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.G-2, Tirupati Balaji ComplexOpp.: Alok School, PanchwatiUdaipur-313001.
Udaipur-ftfOOi, obtained Advance Authorization No. 0003022134, dated 15'04.1998, for import of
(illezakr Polypropylene chips; (ii)145.250kgs of Polypropylene Dyed chips;. (iii)26.250kgs of u.v.iiabliseiand fiutsi.SSO kgs oispin I'inish oilfor a CIF value of Rs.2,72,734/- witl.r obligation to export
3500.00 kgs oi iolypropylene Multifilament Yam 2700 Denier for FOB value of Rs.4,17'000/- (JS$
10425.00),- to Ue cornpt"tla within stipulated a period. As per condition of the Licence, the appellant firm
*as ,eqgii"d to submit export documents, towards fulfillment of stipulated export obligation within two
months from the date of expiry of the said obligation period, but the firm failed to do so. Since the firm
failecl to submit the prescribed export documents showing firlfillment of export obligation, the Adjudicating
Authority in its above said Ordeiimposed a penalty of Rs.8,34,000/- on the firm and its Directors under
Section 13 of Foreign Trade (D& R) Act, 1992'
3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, the appellant firm prefened the appeal stating that
the Advaiie Authoiization No. 0003022134, dated 15.04.1998, issued to the firm has not been utilized as
they have made no import against this licence. The appellant firrn has stated that due to company becoming
sick and closed, it has no man power and resources to trace out the licence and to submit any records/details
to prove that import was not made under this licence.
4. opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellant firm on -30.09.2013
wherein
Mr, K. Srfcumar*, Cfrl(e), appeared b.-for. me. He informed that the Advance Authorization was issued
for CIF value of Rs.2,72,73f 'He inforrned that against this licence no import has taken place and the
licence has not been utilizrld. He informed thut tlit company became sick and the company was not in
operation. He further informed that though the licence was issued in 1998, company had become sick, no
Passed by :
fund, *r.. available, there were seriouJlabour problems and in view of these factors, they filed BIFRof problems in theapplication in
Page i of2
company'thislicenceisnottraceable.However,heobtainedhfomrationfromo/ooftheCommissionerofr customs (Export), Mumbd *a.' nri,t",. om"" or trt" commissioner of customs @xport)' RTI Cell'
New custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai.aoo oor, vide order No.RTIA-EP-i10120I2, dated
02.08.2012, passed by sbli edfenurhk"r, cplo e e$tt. commissioner of custons @xport) informed
#;frftfi;;rJN"Ljlozil+ Jui"a is.o+.tsq8, issued to lWs Rajasttran Petro Svnthetics Ltd' has
not bein registered i" tl", c"rl"- rro*. *a no sorrd/Bc is pending against above mentioned licence of
Raiasthan petro Synthetics ita. -i"
ti"r"O a"t he had produced ais intormation to this Directorate vide its
letter, dated 09.08.2012. H;;r;;; thi" l"tt.r is not _found on record of file' He produced a copy of this
il;#;;ptof the order from bommissioner of Customs @xport) inthe PH'
5'Ihaveexaminedthecompletefactsofthecaseincludingwrittensrrfumissio.nsmadebytheAppellantin the appeal and submissions *ud. i' ttr" personal hearing. ,ippellant has submitted information obtained
by the Appeilant firrn from o/o commissioner of customiGxport), Mumbai, vide order dated 02'08'2012'
as given in para 4 above, "1";i;
;"ti"g ;h"t the. aforesaiJ-idvance Authorization has not been utilized and
no Bond/BG is p.nai"g "gJiu'"iou"
irentioned licence of Rajasthan Petro synthetics Ltd'
6.I,therefore,inexerciseofthepowers-vestedinmeunderSection15oftheForeignTradeb*a"p.""t A Regulation) Act ,1992, as amended' pass the following order:
Order
The Order-in-Original No' $02A02000?5/AM06' dated 18'01'201?' passed by
is set aside and case f ,.-*A"A Uu"t to RA, Mumbai f"I d:-Y" llT1ation $lsubmit all required documents io RA, Mumbai, within a period of one month'
F. No. 1 l/4/2012-13IECA-I
Shakarpur, Vikas MargDelhi-110092
Copv to: Addt.DGFT, Mumbai'
Mr. G.S. Poddar, Ex-Directorlv{/s. Masthan Petro Synthetics Ltd'
Udaipur-:tSO0i, obtainetl Aivance Authorization No. 0003022134, dated 15.04.1998, for import of
CX?itrc" p"fvpt pylene chips; (ii)145.250kgs, of P-ollpropvlene pv-"!-9ld.p';. (iii)26'250kgs of U'V'
ifutnrrri aoO tivlsi.-ssO kgs oi ipin'Finish Oil for a CJF Value of Rs'2,?2,734/- with obligation to export
iSOOOO tg5 oi iotypropy:t.o, tttoltiftlu*ent Yam 2700 Denet for FOB value of Rs'4'17'000/- (US$
fO+ZS.OOI,- t" te conateteO *ithin ttipolut.d a ferio!, {9 per condition of the Licence' the appellant firrn
was requiieil to submit export docurnents, towards iilfillment of stipulated export obligation within two
months ftom the date or.*plry oitfrr saii obligation period, but the firm failed to do so' Since the firm
failed to submit the prescribeJlxport documents-showing fulfillment of export obligation, the Adjudicating
l"tfttfnl in iS above ruia Otaet-i*posed a penalty of Rs.8,34,000/- on the firm and its Directors under
Section 13 ofForeignTrade (D& R) Act' 1992'
3.Aggrievedbytheabovesaidorder.in-original'theappellant|*P'"g".ltheappealstatingthatthe Advance Authorization No. 000302213 4, datA fi.04.L998, issued to the firm has not been utilized as
they have made no import againS this licence. The appellant firm has stated tlat due to company becoming
sick and closed, it has no man power and resources to trace out the licence and to submit any records/details
to prove that import was not made under this licence.
4.opportrrnityofpersonalhearingwasgnnted^totheappellantfirmon-30.09.2013whereinMr. K. Sukumaran, GM(A),
"po"*J beiore m".- He informed that the Advance Authorization was issued
zu CIF value of Rs.2,72,734'.' Lle infonned that against this licence no import has taken place and the
licence has not been utilized. He inforrned that this company became sick and the company was .not in
"p.*ti"t. ff. turther informed that thoughlhe licence was issued in 199*.:"*p:ll-h:d -b:::*^:**,1;ffi;;;;;""td[, tt;;;r; serious lubonr problems and in view of these factors, thev filed BIFR
application in 1999 itself. Hence, the licence was not utilized. He stated tt-ra! \lguse of problems in the
I .' : :,a Pagelof2
V t''.
H
company, this iicence is not traceable. However, he obtained information fiom O/o of the Commissioner off , :utrolt $*poTl, Mumttai under RTI Act. Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Expo4, RTI Cell,
New custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-40o 001, vide Order No.RTIA-Ep- I j Olilt2, dated02.08.2012, passed by Shd Amit Bhashker, CPIO & Asstt. Commissioner of Customs @xport) informedthat.cJioned Licence No'03022134, dated 15.04.1998, issued to IWs Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. hasnot been registered in ttrat Custom House and no Bond./BG is pending against above mentioned licence ofRajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. He stated that he had produced this information to this Directorate vide itsletter, dated 09.08'2012. However, this letter is not found on record of file. He produced a copy of thisletter and a copy of the order from commissioner of customs (Export) in the pH.
5. I have examined the complete facts of the case including written submissions made by the Appellantil the appeal and submissions made in the personal hearing. Appeilant has submitted information obtainedby the Appellant finn from 0/o Commissioner of Customs@xport), Mumbai, vide Order dated 02.0g.2012,as given in para 4 above, clearly stating that the aforesaid Advance Authorization has not been utilizetl anjno Bond,tsG is pending against above mentioned licence of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.
6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade@evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, as arnended, pass the following order:
Order
F. No. I l/5/2012-13/ECA-I Dated: 17e October, 2013
, Mumbai,is directed to
Singhal)Trade
The Order-in-Original No. BA20A2A009S/AN[06, dated 1B.0l.Z0lZ. oassed bvis set aside and case is remanded back to RA, Mumbai for de-novo examination. Aosubmit all required documents to RA, Mumbai, within a period of one month.
Addl. DirectorVIr. A.K. Mittal. Ex-DirectorlWs. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.G-2, Tirupati Balaji Complex
Opp.: Alok School, PanchwatiUdaipur-313001.
Cons. Add.:Mr. A.K. Mittal,@x-Director, IWs Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd)307, Surya Complex, 21 Veer Sarvarkar BlockShakarpur, Vikas MargDelhi-110092
Copy to: Addl.DGFT, Mumbai, for inforrnation aad necessary action.
olc
Page2 of2
!a
" Govemment of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and IndushY
O ,, Directorate General of Foreigrr Trade
I U ll 0 ,U,,fdvo8 Bhavan, New Delhi
F.No.11i6i2012-nnce':ltatrifu"ii^6.rao ., lTtoctober'2013Date of dispatch: 3 t I tol'nt,l
Name of the Appellant :
Order appealed against :
Passed by :
(i) Mr. V.N. Poddar, Ex-DirectorM/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.G-2, Tirupati Balaji ComPlexOpp.: Alok School, PanchwatiUdaipur-313001
Corresoondence Address. :
307, Surya Complex, 21 Sawarkar Marg,
Delhi-110092.
Order-in-OriginalNo. 030200200095/AM06dated 18.01.2012, passed by JI'DGFT, Mumbai
Dr. L.B. Singhal,Appellate Authority &Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade
Order-in-APoeal
Mr. V.N. Poddar, Ex-Director , IWs. Rajasthan Petro s1'nthetics Ltd' G-2, Ti1+ati Balaji complex
Opp.: Alok School, Panchwati, Udaipur-31300f (Appellant) has filed this appeal on 9- March, 2012 under
seciion ts of the Foreigr'Trade (Develop-""f * Regulation) Act,.1992, against order-in-original
udaipur-:trooi, obtained Aivance Authodzation No. ooos-0zztl4, dated 15'04.1998, for import of
tfXE8kgt p"$ropylene chips; (ii)145.250kg1 of Pollpropvlene Dved-lhips;. (iii)26'250kgs of U'V'
iiatliseiand ti"l3f.3SO tes of Spin Ei"ish Oiifor a CIF Value of Rs.2,72,7341- with obligation to export
ssoo.oo kgs oi iolypropyt"n. uo6rtu*ent Yam 2700 Denier for FoB value of Rs'4,17,000/- (us$
f O+ZS.OO),'to te cornptetea within stipulated a period. As per condition- of $e Licence, the appellant firm
was requiied to submit export documints, towards fi.rlfillment of stipulated export obligation within two
-ontt, fronl the date of expiry of the said obligation period, but the firm failed to do so' Since the firm
failed to submit the pr"rcrib"d ""port
documents showing frrlfitlment of export obligation' the Adjudicating
lrtnottty in its abo;e said Ordeiimposed a penalty of Rs.8,34,000/- on the firm and its Directors under
Section 13 of Foreign Trade (D& R) Act' 1992.
3. Aggrieved by the above said order-in-original, the appellant firm prefened the appeal stating that
the Advaiie Authoiization No. 0003022134, datea 15.04.1998, issued to the firm has not been utilized as
they have made no import against this licence. The appellant firrn has stated that due to company becoming
sick and closed, it has no man powef and resources totrace out the licence and to submit any records/details
to prove that import was not made under this licence.
4.opporhrnityofpersonalhearingwasganted.totheappellantfi1mon-30.09,2013whereinMr. K. Sukumaran, GM(A), appeared uio.e me. He informed that the Advance Authorization was issued
for CIF value of Rs.2,72,734'. He informed that against this licence no import has taken place and the
licence has not been utilized. He informed that this company became sick and the company was not in
;;;;;,i"". He further informed that though the licence was issued in 1998, company had become sick, no
i.-d, *"r. available, there were serious-labour problems and in view of these factors, thfy filed BIFR
uppitution in 1999 itself. H;;il ii;;"e *ut ttot utilizetl. He stated that .!,991us,e".9,f r*riil: l"H
nV^l r ',.,
t{ ',
company, this licence is not traceable. However, he obtained information from O/o of the Commissioner ofCustoms @xport), Mumblai under RTI Act. Office of the Commissioner of Customs @xport), RTI Cell,New Custom House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-40O 001, vide Order No.RTIA-EP-1 10/2012, dated02.08.412, passed by Shri Amit Bhashker, CPIO & Asstt. Commissioner of Customs (Export) inforrnedthat captioned Licence No.03022134, dated 15.04.1998, issued to lWs Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. hasnot been registered in that Custom House and no Bond/BG is pending against above mentioned licence ofRajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd. He stated that he had produced this information to this Directorate vide itsletter, dated 09.08.2012. However, this letter is not forurd on record of file. He produced a copy of thisletter and a copy of the Order from Commissioner of Customs (Export) in the PH.
5. i have examined the complete facts of the case including written submissiors made by the Appellantin the appeal and submissions made in the personal hearing. Appellant has submitted information obtainedby the Appellant fimr from O/o Commissioner of Customs@xport), Mumbai, vide Order dated 02.08.2012,as given in para 4 above, clearly stating tbat the aforesaid Advance Authorization has not been utilized andno BondlBG is pending against above mentioned licence of Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.
6. I, thetefore, il exercise of the powers vested in me under Seclion 15 of the Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act,7992, as amended, pass the following order:
Order
F. No.l1l6/2012-13lECA-I Dated: 17m October, 2013
The Order-in-Origiml No. 030200200095/AM06, dated 1 8.01.2012. passedis set aside and case is remanded back to RA. Mumbai for de-novo examination.submit all required documents to RA, Mumbai, within a period of one month.
Addl. Director GenMr. V.N. Poddar, Ex-DirectorN4/s. Rajasthan Petro Synthetics Ltd.G-2, Tirupati Balaji ComplexOpp.: Alok School, PanchwatiUdaipur-313001.
Order-in-OriginalNo. 08/1 14/AM-12/ECA. dated 07.03.2012passed by Jt.DGFT, Ahmedabad
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Addl. Director General of Foreisn Trade
Order-in-Appeal
Order appealed against
Order-in-AppealPassed by
lWs Hotel Silver Cloud, Ahmedabad (Appellant) has filed this appeal on 23.04.2012under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992) againstOrder-in-Original No. 08/114/AM-12/ECA, dated. 07.03.2012, passed by Jt.DGFT,Ahmedabad.
2. IWs Hotel Silver Cloud, Ahmedabad, had obtained EPCG AuthorizationNo,0830003574, dated 06.05.2010 under Zero Duty Scheme for duty saved amount orRs.3,70,206/ with an obligation to export Hospitality Services for Foreign Tourist andMandap Keeper for USD 47614.91 within a period of 6 years from the date of issue ofAuthorization. When it came to the notice of the office JI.DGFT, Ahmedabad, that theAppellant firm is not entitled to get Zero Duty EPCG Authorization in view of thestipulation given in para 5.1A of Handbook of Procedure 2009-14, the notice firm videletter dated 05.05.2011, was asked to (i) surrender original authorization in duplicate forrectification; and (ii) pay 3% differential custom duty with interest from the date of importto till date of pay'rnent to customs in case the authorization holder has already utilized thesame. The Appellant firm was also reminded to comply by Regional Authority (RA),Ahmedabad vide letters dted 01.06.2011 and 04.08.2011 but Appellant did not complywith the same. Appellant informed p.A, Ahmedabad that they approached customdepartment at Sabarmati ICD (INSBI6) and they have been informed by the customsdepartment that they acted as per EPCG licence issued and they need mandate to actfurther from RA office. The request from Appellant was considered by RA, Ahmedabadand a letter dated 12.01.2012 was issued to the Asst. Comm,issioner of Customs, ICD,
Nl' ,, ' ' '1',un,/ i' ' i:',V i- '1i. Pagelof4
n,; !v' l. ..
oKhodiyar with a request to collect the differential duty @ 3% along with interest ftom the
date of import till the date of payment. A copy of the letter dated 12.01.2012 addressed to
the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Khodiyar was also endorsed to the Appellant
firm for their information and necessary action. The Directorate General of Foreign Trade,
New Delhi, vide letter No. 18/01IAM-12/P-51702, dated 31'01.2012, addressed to the
Appellant lirm also clarified tbat zero Duty EPCG Scheme is not available for service
Providers as per Chapter 5 of Foreign Trade Policy/Hand Book of Procedwes. Appellant
was again informed by RA, Ahmedabad vide letter dated 12.0L2012 to submit differentialduty but it did not comply. The explanation given by the Appellant firm vide letter dated
24.02.2012 that on receipt of demand from custom department they shall proceed further
into the matter and till date they have not received any communication from customs
department in the subject matter was not acceptable as it was an attempt to adopt delaying
taCtics the and enjoy the govemment benefits which is not due to them. Accordingly,Order-in-Original was passed on 0'l .03.2012.
3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, the Appellant preferred an appe,al
stating thai they have obtained the EPCG Licence for their above Export product under
Zero Duty Schjm e and imported the materials .in anticipation of duty benefits. Afterwards,
they have been asked to pay customs duty as well as penalty saying that tn9t1 exnolProduct is not covered under Zero Duty EPCG Scheme. It is further stated that if this had
been pointed out earlier about 3% customs duty for their Export Product they would have
not imported the materials and could have sunendered the license without utilization
According to them their Export Product is correctly eligible for zero Duty EPCG Scheme
license as per chapter 5 ofHBP 2009-14. However, if it is felt that their Export Product is
covered under 3% customs duty scheme they have no other altemative but to pay 3%
Customs duty for which time of two month may please be given to them'
4. Opportunrty of Personal Hearing by Appellate Authority was granted to firm on
l}l3l20].. During personal Hearing no one appeared. A letter dated 12.03.2013 was
received stating thit they may notbe in a position to app ear on 1a3/2013 and requested to
take suitable decision considering the content of appeal.
5. I have examined the complete facts of the case including submissions made in
appeal. I observe as under:
(i) para 2.3 of FTP 2009-14 clearly provides that the decision of DGFT shall be final
and binding on all matters relating to interpretation of policy and provisions ofHBP vol.l
(ii) ln this case EPCG licence has been issued for service sector under zero Duty
EPCG Scheme. Subsequently during the performance audit of EPCG Scheme
conducted by the O/o Principal Accountant General, Ahmedabad, it was pointed
out that the Appellant firm has availed the EPCG Autlorization under Zero Duty
EPCG Schemi wrongly. They are not entitled for benefit of Zero Duty EPCG
Scheme. They can take EPCG Authorization under 3% concessional EPCG
Scheme only. On this issue, DGFT vide its letter No.18/01//tNI-121P-51'102 dated
Page 2 of 4
o31.01.2012, addressed to the Appellant frm and a copy to RA, Ahmedabad has
already clarified that the benefit of zero Duty EPCG Scheme is not available for
Service Providers, as per Chapter 5 of Foreign Trade Policy/Handbook ofprocedures. Hence, this issue is clearly established that the Appellant firm is not
entitled for the benefit of Zero Duty EPCG Scheme. It should have availed EPCG
Authorization under 370 concessional EPCG Scheme only.
(iiD After this issue came to the notice of RA, Ahmedabad, ample opportu{ty w-al
provided by RA, Ahmedabad to the Appellant firm for paying the differential
iustom duty with interest to the customs authorities for regularization of this case'
Repeated letters have been issued to the Appellant firm including letters on
05.05.2011,01.06'2011,04'08.2011 and again on 12.01'2012' In spite of repeated
reminders, the Appellant firm failed to regulanze the case by way of payment ofdifferential custom duty and interest.
(iv) Appellant frm requested RA, Ahmedabad to issue a letter to the custom authority
una- na, Ahmedabad acceded to this request also and issued a letter to concemed
custom authority on 12.01.2012. In spite of this, the Appellant firm faiied to pay
the differential custom duty and interest. Hence, the adjudication order was passed
on 07.03.2012.
(v) Appellant firm was provided an opportunity of personal hearing on 18.03.2013
before me and this was not attende dby any one. Appellant firm vide its letter dated
12.03.2013 has requested to take suitable decision considering contents of the
appeal.
6. In view ofthe facts given in para 5 above, I arrive at the conclusion tlat Appellant
firm is not entitled for the benefit of Zero Duty EPCG Scheme. Since the benefit ofZero
Duty EPCG Scheme was wrongly availed, it is duty bound to pay to the custom authofities
differential custom duty and interest which has been informed to the Appellant firm
repeatedly by RA, Ahmedabad. I also furd that ample opportunity has been ptovided to the
Appellant firm by Rr\, Ahmedabad to regularize the case by way ofpayment of differential
custom duty and interest but in spite of reminders and ample time provided to the
Appellant firm, it has failed to pay differential custom duty and interest. I also find that
Appellant firm has not given any evidence ofpre-deposit of penalty amount ofRs.l5,000/.
As per Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Ac! 1992, no such
appeal shall be entertained unless the amount of penalty or redemption charges has been
deposited by the Appellant firm.
Page 3 of4
4,I
o7. I, therefore, in exetcise ofthe powers vested in me.undet Section 15 of the Foreign
Trade (development & Regulation) fct, tggZ, as amended, pass the following order:
Order
F. No. 1 1/85/20 I 2-13 IECA-L Dated: 22tu october,z1l3
12, passed byih para 5 and
Lalit B. Singhal )of Foreign Trade
Page 4 of4
The Order-in-Original No.08/114/AM-12/ECA' dated
Jt.DGFT, Ahmedabacl, is upheld and appeal is dismissed on grou
6 above.
lWs Hotel Silver CloudOpp.GandhiA-shram & Dandi Bridge OIC
Ashram Road, WadajAhmedabad 380 027.
Copy to : JI.DGFT, Ahmealabad, for information and necessary action'
I
o
Inter'm Order-in-Appealpassed by
Govemment of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and lndustry
Directorate General of Foreign TradeUdvos Bhavan, New Delhi-l 10011.
Itt7tt,t'trtqz,F.No.l112111201}-lllBcA-ll ' Daie of Order : 30s Ocrober, 2013
Date of dispatch : 3l ltol U,tName of the Appellant lvVs. Kaizen Switchgear Products
O-in-O No.34l0i 1002/87 | ANII 1 /ECN3382dated 14.10.2010passed by JI.DGFT, Vadodara
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Addl. Director General ofForeien Trade
Interim Order-in-Appeal
Order appealed against
IWs Kaizen Switchgear Products (Appellant) has filed this appeal on09.12.2010 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act,1992,againstOrder-in-OriginalNo.34101/002187lAMll1ECN3382,dated 14.10.2010passed by JI.DGFT, RA, Vadodara.
2. lWs Kaizen Switchgear Products had obtained Advance AuthorizationNo.0137898, dated 15.12.1999 for duty ftee import for CIF value of Rs.6,39,734 withthe obligation to export 3760 Nos of export products as specified in the licence for FOBvalue of Rs.21,63,032/- within a period of 18 months from the date of issue of thelicence. The firm was required to submit export documents to the licensing Authorityshowing fulfillment of export obligation, but they did not do so. Therefore, theAdjudicating Authority, Vadodara, issued a Show Cause Notice, granting PH on07.11.2005, under Section 14 against the firm and its partners for initiating penal actionunder Section lt (2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.Since, the appellant firm failed to submit prescribed export documents in original, theAdjudicating Authority in its above Order-in-Original, dated 14.10.2010, imposed afiscal penalty ofRs.12,79,500 on the firm and its partners under Section l1(2) of the saidAct.
3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, lvl/s Kaizen Switchgear Products,Vadodara" prefened the present appeal stating that they have fulfilled the exportobligation and required documents submitted . Further they have stated that they are in aposition to submit the requirements under para 4.30A of the Handbook of ProceduresVo.1 and Public Notice No.79 dated 02.01.2006.
o4. The oppotunity of personal hearing was granted on 09.03.2011, 09.02.2072,
27.02.2012,22.03.2012,23.04.2012,22.04'2013, and21.10.2013.Mr.SubhashBhonsle,Head-Logistics of the firm, appeared before me in the PH on 21'10.13. He stated that inthis case, they were supposed to complete exports of 3?60 Nos of export prcduct and as
per the Part-H, given by the firm in the appeal, they have completed tlle entire export of3760 Nos. In the statement of exports given by the firm, they have given details ofshipping bills which shows that export has been completed. He informed that earlier,
they had problems in locating some of the documents but now they have got complete
documents, as required under para 4.30(,{) of FIBP vol'1 for closure of the case. He
informed that he had submitted these documents vide his letter dated 11.07.2013. He
requested that the case may be remanded back to RA, Vadodara.
5. In view of the above facts, I have agreed for putting the Order-in-Original
No.34/01/002187//+Ml1lECN3382, dated 14.10.2010 in abeyance for a period of three
month i.e. up to 28" January, 2014.
6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the
Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the followingorder:
Dateofdispatch : Jt ll0)?413Name of the Appellant lWs. Kaizen Switchgear Products
Plot No.866/1, GIDC Estate
MakarpuraVadodara-3 90 010.
O-in-O No.34l0i / 002190 I AN[ll |ECN3382dated 08.10.2010passed by Jt.DGFT, Vadodara
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &
Order appealed against
Interim Order-in-Appealpassed by
Addl. Director General ofForeign Trade
Interim Order-in-APPeal
IWs Kaizen Switchgear Products (Appellant) has filed this appeal on
09.12.2010 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,
1992, against Order-in-Original No.34l01/002/90/AMlllECA/3382, dated 08.10.2010,
passed by JI.DGFT, P.r{, Vadodara.
2. JWs Kaizen Switchgear Products had obtained Advance Authorization
No.0137047, dated 29.12.1998, for duty free import of 6247 kgs Epoxy Resin, Hexa
Hydrophthalic Anhydride, etc. for CIF value of Rs'5,94,503 with obligation to expo1s 472
wall through bushing, as specified in the licence for FOB value of Rs.27,37,9641- withina period of 18 months from the date of issue of the licence. The firm was required to
submit expon documents to the licensing Authority showing fulfillment of €xport
obligation, but they did not do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority, Vadodara,
issued a Show Cause Notice, dated 08.01.2004, under Section 14 against the firm and its
partners for initiating penal action under Section 11 (2) of the Foreign Trade
@evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992' Since, the appellant firm failed to submit
prescribed export documents in original or to regularize the case by way of payment ofiustom duty and interest on the excess import, the Adjudicating Authority in its above
Order-in-Oiiginal, dated 08.10.2010, imposed a fiscal penalty of Rs.1 1'89,000/- on the
firm under Section 1 1(2) ofthe said Act.
I4.Theopportunityofpersonalhearingwasgrante{on09'03'2011,09'02'2012'27.02.2012,2T.01.20ti,23.04.2012,22.04.2013, and 21.10.2013. Mr' Subhash Bhonsle,
Head-Logistics of the firm, appeared before me in the PH on 21.i0.13. He stated that in
this casei as against allowed -import
quantity of 6247kgs, they have imported lOOS.l\es.Whereas, as alainst stipulated quantity of 472 Nos' firm has done exports of 260 Nos'
As per exports statement and Part H given in the appeal, he informed that in this case
there is an excess import and for the excess import now they have paid custom auty-Td
interest of Rs.2,96,013/- on 28.02.2013. He has produced before me a copy of the
challan evidencing payment of above stated amount to the Mumbai customs House. He
requested that the case may be remanded back to RA, Vadodara'
5. DGFT has isjued public Norice No.22, dated 12.08.2013, according to which all
pending cases can be regularized on payment of custo-ms duty and interest' DGFT has
h.rrther-issued Policy Cicular No.8, dated 25.10.2013, wherein a procedure has been
prescribed for closure of the case under Public Notice No.22, dated 12.08'2013.
ippellant has to submit the required documents for closure of the case to RA concerned
getiing the case closed and submit the closure letter to the Appellate Authority.
l. f" view of the above facts, I have agreed for putting the Order-in-Original
No.34l01/002/90/AM1I/ECA/3382, dated 08.10.2010 in abeyance for a period of three
month i.e. up to 29' JanuarY, 2014.
7.|,tlerefore,inexerciseofthepowersvestedinmeunderSection15oftheForeign Trade @evelopment & Regulafion) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the following
O-in-O No.3410 1/002/88/AMl 1/8CN3382dated27.09.2010passed by Jt.DGFT, Vadodara
Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &
Order appealed against
Addl. Director General ofForeign Trade
Interim Order-in-APneal
IWs Kaizen Switchgear Products (Appellant) has filed this appeal on
09.12.2010 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act,
1992, against Order-in-Original No. 34l01/002/88/AM1 1,1ECA/3382, dated 27.09.2010
passed by Jt.DGF1, P..lq, Vadodara.
2. Mls Kaizen Switchgear Products had obtained Advance Authorization
No.0137983, dated 05.01.2000 for duty free import for CIF value of Rs.40,87,443 with
obligation to export 7539 Nos of export products as specified in the licenoe for FOB
valui of Rs.1,24,60,4481- within a period of 18 months from the date of issue of the
licence. The firm was required to submit export documents to the licensing Authority
showing fulfillment of export obligation, but they did not do so. Therefore, the
Adjudicating Authority, Vadodara, issued a Show Cause Notice granting PH on
29:07.2010, under Section 14 against the firm and its partners for initiating penal action
under Section I 1 (2) of the Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992'
Since, the appellant firm failed to submit prescribed export documents in original, the
Adjudicating Authority in its above Order-in-Original , dated 27 '09.2010, imposed a
fiscal penalty of Rs.81,74,890/- on the firm and its parhers under Section i1(2) of the
said Act.
3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Ori gnal, W s Kaizen Switchgear Products,
Vadodara, prefened the present appeal stating they have fulfilled complete export
obligation and required documents submitted. They have requested to $ant stay of the
Page I of2
above cited Order-in-original.
o4.Theoppornrnityofpersonalhearingwasgrantedon09.03.2011,09.02.20|2'27 .02.2012, iz-.oz.zoti, 23.04.2012,22.04.2013, and 21.r0.2013. Mr. subhash Bhonsle,
Head-Logiitics of the firm, appeared before me in the PH on 21.10.13. He stated that in
this case]they *"r" tupposed to complete exports of 7539 Nos of export product and
realized ioB value ofUso 285266. As per statement of exports given by the firm in the
appeal, he stated that he has completed the exports both in terms of quantity as well as
vaiue. He informed that he is now in position to submit complete documents as required
under para 4.30(4) of HBP vol.l or Public Notice No.79 dated 02.01.2006' for closure of
the caie. He requested that tlre case may be remanded back to RA, Vadodara
S. Io view of the above facts, I have agreed for putting the Order-in-Original
No.34l01/002/88lN1llECN33S2, dated27.09.2010 in abeyance for a period of three
month i.e. up to 296 January,2014.
6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the
Foreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the following
order:Interim Order-in-Anneal
1. The order-in-original No'34/01/002/88/AM1 1/EcA/3382, dated 27.09.2010 is
kept in abeyance lor three months i.e. up to 29m Jan uaty,2014 '
Appellant is directed to submit all the required documents for closure of the case
to RA, Vadadra, within a period of 45 days.
3. RAo Vadodara is advised to examine all the documents
Copy to: Jt.DGFT, Vadodara for information and necessary action'
Dated: 30* October, 2013
Foreign Trade
(Munish Kumar)
Page 2 of2
-rfiffi*t
o
F. No.1 1 t 484t 2o1 1 -12rEc ^.i f
I.t | 74 "U
r *'S
I
Government of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and lndustry
Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110107'
(Development & Regulation)
October 31,2013
f )rsp"lzd i orf tr f tary
Act, 1992 andits Director.
Name of the Appellant:
Order appealed against:
Passed by
Present on behalf of lthe appellants
were jnitiated under Foreign TradeAdjudicating Authority imposed fiscal
M/s Veekay Fotokad India (P) Ltd.Flat No. 7-D,7'n Floot,Hansalaya Building,15, Barakhamba Road,NEW DELHI - 110 OO1.
Order-in-OriginalNo.ADV/LlC/48/AM 93/DES-lV/CLA dated281'1212010 passed by FTDO, Oio ZonalJt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi
ORDER.IN.APPEAL
V. K. Srivas tavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade
Sunil Goyal, Authorized Representative
M/s Veekay Fotokad India (P) Ltd. filed an appeal against the Order-in-
Original No. ADV/LIC/48/AM 93/CLA dated 2811212010 passed by the FTDO' O/o
Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA. New Delhi, in terms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed on
the appellant firm for non-fulfillment of export obligation against AdvanceAuthorization No.021 16803 dated 21 /05/1992.
2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Veekay Fotokad lndia (P) Ltd
obtained an Advance Authorization No.02116803 dated 21105/1992 for a CIF value
of Rs.3,89,412l- (US $ 15331) subject to the condition that ihe firm shall export the
resultant product as per conditions of authorization in question, The appellant
firm was under obligation to submit the prescribed documents to the Regional
Authority in support of fulfillment of thejr export obligation within specified period.
But the appellant firm failed to submit the export documents. Hence, proceedings
thepenalty on appellant firm a
3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Order daled 2811212010, M/s VeekayFotokad India (P) Ltd. filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been submitted that thefirm had fulfilled export obligation to the extent of 100 % in quantity terms and 100 %in value terms. Appellations further stated that all the prescribed .documents
required for redemption of the said authorization have been sent to the Office ofJDGFT, CLA, New Delhi vide key No. 1078959 dated 08/06/2011.
4. Appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 0311012012. Onthat day Shri Suni Goyal, Authorized Representative appeared and requestedcondonation in delay in submission of appeal and stated that export obligation wasfulfilled and documents submitted at Regional Authority. He requested time tomake submission for condonation of delay in filing appeal and also evidence ofsubmission of documents at Regional Authority. As requested, time was grantedand one more opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 13/1212012. On thalday Shri Sunil Goyal, Authorized Representative appeared and requested more time(i) to get confirmation' letter from Regional Authority that original bank realizationcertificate had also been submitted by appellants; and (ii) to make writtensubmission on delay in filing appeal. Thus, another opportunity of personal hearingwas granted on 3110112Q13. On that day Shri Sunil Goyal, AuthorizedRepresentative appeared and requested final 15 days more time to either submitevidence of submission of bank realization certificate in original at Regional Authorityor documents under Public Notice No. 79 dated 0210112006. Time was allowed buthe was yet to make written submission on delayed filing of appeal. Hence, nextopportunity of personal hearing on admission was granted on 2110212013 but noone appeared nor any intimation was received. One more opportunity of personalhearing was granted on 2410412013 to produce original documents but wasrescheduled on 07 /0612013. On that day Shri Sunil Goyal, AuthorizedRepresentative appeared and stated that he was able to get a photocopy of bankrealization certificate. He requested 4-6 weeks more time as he was applying toPolicy Relaxation Committee for some relaxations. Time was allowed. One moreopportunity of personal hearing was granted on 2910712013 but no one appeared.Instead a requested was received for adjournment on medical grounds. Thus,another opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 12J0912013. On that dayShri Sunil Goyal, Authorized Representative appeared. Though he had deposited 1
% as per para 4.304 of Handbook of Proceedures Volume-|, as bank realizationcertificate was not available in original. He requested few weeks more time todeposit customs duty saved plus interest on excess imports (there was someshortfall in value). Regional Authority had already confirmed that other originaldocuments except original bank realization certificate had been submitted atRegional Authority and next opportunity of personal hearing was granted onO411012013. On that day Shri Sunil Goyal, Authorized Representative appearedand produced documents as per para 4.30A of Hand Book of Proceedures Volume-las original bank realization certiflcates were not available. Regional Authority in theirletter dated O9lO8l2O12 had already confirmed that appellants had submitted originalauthorization, original DEEC book, original shipping bills, photocopy of bankrealization certificate on 08/06/2011. Original documents as per para 4.304 of HandBook of Proceedures Volume-l like original Affidavit-cum-lndemnity Bona, originalTR-6 (two in numbers) have been returned to Shri Goyal with directions to producesame before Regional Authority with in one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.
trl-f**o----*
5. I have gone through the facts of the case, submission of original Affidavitcum-lndemnity Bond, original TR-6 (two in numbers) and Regional Authority's reportvide letter No. Adv/Ljc/48/AM 93/DES-|V/CLA dated 0910812012 confirming thatappellants have submitted original authorization, original DEEC book, original
shipping bill, photocopy of bank realization on 08/06/201 1 . As Regional Authorityhas confirmed submission of original documents except original bank realization
certificate at Regional Authority and appellants have now submitted documents asper para 4.304 of Hand Book of Proceedures Volume-|, case needs review by
Regional Authority.
6. l. therefore. in exercise of the power vested in me under Section 15 read with
Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amendedpass the following order:
ORDER
F. No.1 1/484/20 1 1 -12lEC A.l October 31, 2013
1.
Addl. Direclor General
M/s Veekay Fotokad India (P) Ltd.Flat No. 7-D, 7th Floor,Hansalaya Building,15, Barakhamba Road,NEW DELHI '110 OO1.
Copy to : Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi for information and necessary action.
.'mrwW;rft
2.
The Order-in-Original No. ADV/L|C/48/AM 93/CLA dated 2811212010passed by FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set aside and the case is remandedback to the Regional Authority for de-novo consideration.Appellants are directed to produce original documents as per para 4.304of Hand Book of Proceedures Volume-l before Regional Authority with inone month of receipt of Order-in-Original.
