Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) The Assistant Chief Controller of Imports and Exports granted an advance licence dated March 31, 1984 to the petitioner for import of 1,00,000.00 pieces of hand bag fittings (buckles, hooks, clamps, etc.). The Assistant Chief Controller also granted a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (hereinafter described as DEEC to the petitioner for exemption from import duty on the import of the said goods subject to fulfilment of the conditions specified in Notification No. 117/78. One of the conditions specified in the licence was that the petitioner would have to export 20,000 pieces of leather hand bags within six months from the date of importation of the first consignment against the said advance licence. The specified period, however, was subsequently extended till July 31,1986.
(2.) The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the said Advance Import Licence the petitioner imported hand bag fittings. While fitting with leather bags, some fittings were broken and were found defective. The percentage of such broken/defective fittings are only 16% approximately. Such loss is bound to occur in every case of manufacture. The rest of the fittings were fitted with the leather hand bags manufactured by the petitioner. The leather hand bags were duly exported to foreign countries within the extended period of Advance Licence and the same were certified by the customs authorities in the said DEEC Book. The date of import of the said hand bag fittings and export of the leather hand bags and the signature of the Customs Officer will appear from DEEC Book. On completion of the shipments of the leather goods the original DEEC Book was submitted to the DEEC Cell for verification with their register and for issue of no objection certificate. The petitioner complied with all the procedure for registration.
(3.) The petitioner was served with a notice by the Assistant Collector of Customs, DEEC Cell dated November 12, 1986 to show cause why the duty and interest should not be levied upon the petitioner for non-fulfilment of its export obligations. It was alleged in the said show cause notice that the petitioner has not submitted DEEC Book with all relevant documents and proof in support of discharging its export obligation. The petitioner sent its reply by letter dated December 18, 1986. The DEEC Book along with 35 sets of relevant export documents and bank certificates of payment against the DEEC Book were enclosed with the said reply. It was also mentioned that the petitioner had already submitted 15 sets of relevant documents on February 22, 1985.;