PARASRAMPURIA SYNTHETICS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. is whether they have fulfilled their export obligation.

(2.) Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture Polyester Filament Yarn, Polypropylene filament yarn, etc.; that they imported capital goods under EPCG Scheme and obtained the benefit of Notification No. 160/92 -Cus., dated 20 -4 -92; that they were under an obligation to export finished products equivalent to 4 times the CIF value of the goods imported within a period of 5 years from the date of issue of licence i.e. 2 -4 -1993; that they fulfilled the export obligation to the extent of 64% up to 1 -4 -98 and remaining obligation could not be fulfilled due to conditions in the international market. The learned Advocate, further, mentioned that the Appellants are having other manufacturing units in the name of M/s. Parasrampuria International and Parasfab International, both divisions of Parasrampuria Synthetic Ltd. which are 100% E.O.Us.; that in terms of liberalized Export -Import Policy and in particular Para 6.5 of the EXIM Policy, 1997 -2002, they are eligible to club the export made by their division, namely Parasrampuria International; that if the export made by this division is clubbed with the export made by the Appellants, 100% Expert obligation have been achieved; that the Commissioner of Customs under the i impugned Order has confirmed the demand of duty and imposed penalty holding that as per the condition of Para 6.5(ii) of EXIM Policy, the export shall be direct export in the name of EPCG licence holder which conditions has not been satisfied in the present matter; that the Commissioner had also given his finding that the goods exported by Parasrampuria International had not been manufactured by using the capital goods imported under EPCG licence which is the requirement of Para 41 (i) of EXIM Policy, 1992 -97 under which they had obtained EPCG licence.

(3.) The learned Advocate submitted that the Commissioner has not appreciated the exact scope of Para 6.5(ii) of the Policy since the said Para also states that the export through third party is also allowed provided the name of EPCG licence holder is indicated on the Shipping Bill; that Shipping Bill of Parasrampuria International would show under the column Exporter's Details, "Parasrampuria Synthetic Ltd., Div. Parasrampuria International"; that thus the requirement about mentioning the name of the EPCG licence holder has been completely met; that while referring to Para 41(i) of EXIM Policy, 1992 -97 the Commissioner has overlooked the provisions of Paragraph 6.5 of Policy, 1997 -2002 inasmuch as Para 6.5(i) states that the export of some goods by different manufacturing unit of the licence holder can be clubbed; that obviously capital goods imported under EPCG Scheme cannot be installed in one unit only and if a view is taken that the goods of the other units must also be manufactured by the machinery so imported, the provisions of Para 6.5 would become impractical and defeat the very purpose of relaxation given therein. He further, mentioned that they had applied to D.G.F.T. for extension of the period of export under their letter dated 30 -7 -98; that D.G.F.T. informed the Appellants under letter dated 25 -5 -99 that they are eligible for extension of export obligation period up to 31 -3 -2000 provided they make a specific request along with bank guarantee covering the duty in proportion to the unfulfilled export obligation together with 24% interest from the date of import up to 30th September, 2001 within 60 days; that the Appellants thereafter requested D.G.F.T. under their letter dated 3 -6 -99 that extension was required for about 20% only and unless bank guarantee along with LUT executed at the time of obtaining the licence was returned they were not in a position to execute a fresh bank guarantee; that no reply was received from DGFT to their letter dated 3 -6 -99; that therefore, it cannot be held that their request for extension was rejected by the DGFT; that their request is pending with DGFT as is evident from letter dated 11 -6 -2001 of DGFT regarding eligibility. He also referred to Para 6 of Public Notice No. 5 (RE -99)/1997 -2002, dated 6 -4 -99 wherein it is mentioned that "in such cases where export obligation stand fulfilled prior to the date of Public Notice but outside the prescribed export obligation period, such export shall be deemed to have been made within the prescribed Export Obligation period for the purpose of regularisation of the case." He, therefore, claimed that the exports made after 3 -8 -98 but before 6 -4 -99 should also be taken into consideration for fulfilment of export obligation.