Delhi High Court
A.M. Handicraft vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 19 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(212)ELT315(DEL)
Bench: Chief Justice, Sanjiv Khanna
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th September, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the order dated 17th November, 2005 passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade rejecting the appeal of the appellant for non-fulfillment of export obligation and non-submission of DEEC books (import and export) duly logged by the customs authorities.
2. The appellants were granted license on 24th May, 1996 for import of 19.88 metric tonnes of brass scrap for a CIF value of Rs. 9,48,318/- (US$ 28308) with a condition that the appellants would export 18.5 metric tonnes of Brass Artwares for a FOB value of Rs. 16,12,187/- (US$ 48125) within 18 months from the date of issue of the said license. The appellants imported the said brass scrap but even after the expiry of the export period against the said license, they did not submit any proof of fulfilllment of export obligation. The export period expired on 23rd November, 1997.
3. Notices were issued to the appellant firm to submit all documentary evidence for having complied with the export obligation. The appellant got opportunity of personal hearing but did not avail of the said opportunity nor did the appellant submit any proof of fulfilllment of the export obligation. Accordingly, an order dated 3rd June, 2002 was passed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, Moradabad imposing on the appellant a fiscal penalty of Rs. 18,96,636/- for their failure to submit relevant documents as per conditions of license. The appellants were found to be guilty of violation of the conditions of license under Section 11 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992.
4. An appeal thereafter was filed by the appellant without depositing the amount of penalty or redemption charges.
5. The provision for appeal under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 contemplates that no appeal shall be entertained unless the amount of penalty or redemption charges is deposited by the appellant. However, deposit of the amount can be waived. The appellant was granted an opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority. On 28th May, 2003 the appellant was asked to deposit the penalty amount. No such payment was made.
The matter was fixed for hearing on 29th September, 2005, when it was adjourned in order to enable the counsel for the appellant to place his vakalatnama on record. On 20th October, 2005 when the matter was again listed before the appellate authority, the counsel for the appellant admitted before the appellate authority that no exports had been made and the appellant was in process of paying customs duty along with interest.
The stand taken before the learned Single Judge was that a consultant of Mr. K.K. Gupta directly or otherwise had made the import against the advance license and had forged the signatures of the appellants on the relevant documents. This stand was not taken in the appeal filed before the appellate authority. In the appeal it was admitted that due to some other reasons, the appellant could not make exports and fulfilll his obligation. The learned Single Judge considered the records and having gone through the same observed that there was an admission by the counsel for the appellant who had appeared on 20th October, 2005 that no export has been made and, the appellants were in the process of paying customs duty along with interest. There is no record or document produced by the appellant to show that any export was made either by them or by any other person on their behalf. They have also failed to produce copy of DEEC books, shipping bills, realisation certificate in support of fulfilllment of export obligation. Even before us the said facts are not disputed. The plea taken that a third party had forged the signatures and imported the goods cannot be accepted as these allegations are vague. It is also clearly established from the records that no such plea was earlier raised by the appellant. The appellant cannot be permitted to raise new ground and defense that their signatures were forged and they had not imported the material. The stand is clearly an after thought and contrary to the stand of the appellant before the appellate authority. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.