Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. In response to the above letter, Respondent No. 1 replied on 31st July 2012 referring to the export schedule of Foreign Trade Policy (ITC HS Classification Book) and particularly Table-B, Chapter-2 Meat and Edible Offal. Further clarifying Question at (a) the Collector of Customs stated as under:

"It is therefore incumbent upon the very policy making body (DGFT in this case) to devise alternatives in case authorized Government doctor(s) is/are not available in the respective exporting State and as to how the exporter will export goods in such a situation. The Customs has at no point of time, issued any instructions to deal with such cases presumable due to the fact that we do not frame Import/Export Policy not being our Charter of duties."

Submissions on behalf of the Respondent

29. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned Senior standing counsel for the Revenue on the other hand sought to defend the impugned SCN by referring the paragraphs thereunder which alleged violation of the Act by the Petitioners. He submitted that the Petitioners should respond to the SCN and participate in the adjudication proceedings and thereafter pursue their remedies in accordance with law.

30. According to Mr Satish Kumar, the Petitioners had contravened Rule 5 of the 1992 Rules since they failed to obtain a valid veterinary health certificate from the designated veterinary of the State Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Haryana. He submitted that the Petitioners had contravened Section 50 of the Act since they had made incorrect declarations before the Customs authority at the time of filing of shipping bill by submitting invalid veterinary health certificates. It is further submitted that by violating the provision of ITC (HS) classification of Import and Export Items, Schedule II thereby contravening the provisions of Section 11 of FTDR Act, Petitioner No. 1 had rendered the goods exported by them prohibited under Section 11 of the Act. Thus the goods had become liable for confiscation under Section 113 (d) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath AIR 1994 SC 853. According to the Respondents, the entire DEPB credit and VKGUY benefit availed by the Petitioners during the past five years were payable by them along with interest and penalty under Sections 114 and 114A of the Act.