- (1.) This writ petition seeks quashing of order dated 4-5-2005 Annexure P14 passed by the appellate authority under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, 'the Customs Act')- Show cause notice dated 9-8-2000 was issued to the petitioner and its partners under Section 4L of the Import and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (for short, 'the 1947 Act') read with Section 20(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (for short, 'the 1992 Act') for taking action for failure to fulfil export obligation under Advance Licence No. 3071782 dated 27-2-1984 for Rs. 5,00,000/- and Advance Licence No. 3072471 dated 22-9-1984 for Rs. 5,00,000/-. Allegations in the notice are that exemption benefit was allowed for import of 24 M.T. subject to export obligation of exporting 3000 Pcs Acrylic Children T. Shirts, 35000 Pcs. Acrylic Gents T. Shirts weighing 20 M.T. for a FOB value of Rs. 11,92,500/- within the stipulated period. Second instalment of licence was issued bearing No. 3072471 dated 22-9-1984 for Rs. 5 lacs for import of 25 MT of Acrylic Fibre man-made with both value and quantity as limiting factor. The duty exemption benefit was allowed for import of 24 MT only subject to export obligation of 3000 Pcs. Acrylic Children T. Shirts and 35000 Pcs. Acrylic Gents T. Shirts weighing 20 MT for FOB value of Rs. 11,92,500/-.
(2.) The petitioner failed to submit documents towards discharge of export obligation in respect of second licence inspite of extension and after issuing show cause notice dated 25-5-1989, the petitioner was debarred from receiving the import Licenses/CCPs and allotment of imported goods from the STC/MMTC or any other canalizing agency as well as import under OGL for 5 licensing periods viz., April 89 - March 90 to April 93 - March 94 vide Adjudicating Order No. 5/2/AM'90/FCA/LDH/1039-1043, dated 21-9-1989 against which appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on 3-6-1994 by the Additional DGFT. It was alleged that the default of the petitioner attracted penal action under Section 40-1 of the 1947 Act read with Section 20(2) of the 1992 Act.
(3.) Stand of the petitioner was that the petitioner had already been penalised by the order of debarring; it had imported 20 MT of material against which export of 16 MT goods of FOB value was required and the petitioner had already exported 10425.701 kgs. of goods for Rs. 11,92,500/- and shortfall was only to the extent of 5574.300 kgs. The adjudicating authority recorded following finding: ...They also failed to furnish the export proceeds realization certificate and export DEEC Book showing entries of the exports claimed to have been made by them. It is also observed that all such exports have been made after the expiry of export obligation period. Therefore, in view of the above situation such exports cannot be considered towards discharge of export obligation. The Noticee firm also failed to get their case regularized by paying amount equivalent to the Customs duty exemption enjoyed by them alongwith interest. After obtaining the licence on the given conditions and after making the imports there against, it was expected from the noticee to meet the dead line of export and to take care of all his obligation regarding fulfillment of the exports or paying the customs duty etc. in case of default. But they did not do so even after so many years. I am unable to accept the reasoning given by the noticee firm that the Show Cause Notice was bad in law because they had already been penalized by way of debarment. The debarment of the noticee was ordered under the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 whereas the present proceedings are under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Both the proceedings are independent in nature and there is no double jeopardy as claimed by the noticee.;