COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GUNTUR Vs. HINDUSTAN TOBACCO CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order -in -Original No. CUS 11/99, dated 6 -12 -1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur.

(2.) THE respondents are the exporters of tobacco. They filed a Shipping Bill No. 221/93, dated 29 -4 -93 at ICD, Reddipalem, for export of 3,00,000 Kgs. of unmanufactured tobacco declaring the export value as Rs. 69,53,798/ -. The said Shipping Bill was passed by the Competent Authority and export was made on 4 -5 -1993 through ICD. On 7 -5 -93, the Respondents submitted a Value Based Advance Licence application to the DGFT vide counter receipt No. 12686. Later on scrutiny of the Shipping documents and the transference copy of the Shipping Bill No. 221/93 received from Customs House, Madras, it was noticed that the said export was shown to have been made against Value Based Advance Licence application filed with Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), vide Counter Receipt No. 012686, dated 7 -5 -93, in terms of Para 66 of Import and Export Policy for 1992 -1997. On verification, it was found that the Respondents tampered with the DEEC Book Part -I No. 077945, dated 10 -6 -93 as regards the endorsement of Competent Authority certifying the export and was wrongly showing that the obligation was discharged. The licence was transferred by the respondents without discharging export obligation in violation of Para 67 of Export and Import Policy and in violation of condition No. (i) of the Notification No. 203/92, dated 19 -5 -92. Shri Koti Reddy, Leaf Manager and authorized representative of the Respondents Company vide his statement dated 9 -5 -94 admitted that the endorsement on the shipping bill was made subsequently. Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents proposing penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur who in the impugned order dropped the proceedings against the Respondents.

(3.) SHRI Kumar Santhosh, ld. SDR appeared for the Revenue. Nobody appeared for the Respondents nor any request for adjournment was received. We find that at the earlier occasion on 20 -1 -2004, the appeal was posted for hearing and at that time also nobody appeared for the Respondents. Since two opportunities have already been given to the Respondents but they neither responded to the notice nor appeared for hearing, the appeal filed by the Revenue is being disposed of on the basis of evidence on records.