DHAWANI FASHIONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the sides.

(2.) SHRI Laxminarayana, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants stated that the appellants had imported one Multi Head Embroidery Machine under EPCG Scheme under licence No. 2134212, dated 3 -5 -1995 and the machine was cleared under Customs Notification No. 160/92 -Cus., dated 20 -4 -1992 on execution of a bond for fulfilment of export obligation to an extent of US $ 5,59,429/ -. The appellants had executed a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs. 10,69,404/ - (50% of the duty saved amount). Since the appellants did not submit any export documents for more than 4 years, the Bank Guarantee was enforced and for the balance amount of duty and interest, a demand notice was issued to the appellants on 30 -11 -1999. The Asstt. Commissioner, in his Order -in -Original, had confirmed the duty demand under Notification No. 110/95 -Cus., dated 5 -6 -1995 and charged interest at the rate of 24% per annum. On an appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Asstt. Commissioner.

(3.) SHRI P.M. Saleem, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that the Notification No. 160/92 -Cus., dated 20 -4 -1992 was amended by Notification No. 108/95 -Cus., dated 5 -6 -1995 by amending condition No. (1) making the said Notification applicable to the valid licence issued on or before 30th April, 1995 and Notification No. 110/95 -Cus., dated 5 -6 -1995 is applicable to the licence which are issued on or after 1st May, 1995 under EPCG Scheme as per condition (1) of the said Notification. Notification No. 160/92 -Cus., dated 20 -4 -1992 is not applicable to the licence issued after 30 April, 1995. The licence of the appellants was issued on 3 -5 -1995. Therefore, Notification No. 110/95 -Cus. only is applicable in their case. They have executed the bond for completion of export obligation which they have not completed, therefore, the demand notice has been rightly issued to them and interest has been rightly charged under Notification No. 110/95 -Cus., which was the Notification applicable in their case. Simply mentioning the Notification No. 160/92 -Cus. in the Bill of Entry at the time of clearance of the goods does not mean that the mistake cannot be corrected by demanding duty under the correct Notification. On date of import, since the Notification No. 110/95 -Cus., was applicable, therefore, mentioning of wrong Notification in the Bill of Entry does not entitle the appellants to take the benefit of Notification which was not applicable to them. Since the appellants have not fulfilled their export obligation, the duty has been correctly demanded along with the interest.