by: murnljr-dgftcom.nic.in/ecaorders/april2013.pdf · no. picgl2154742 dated 5.03.1997 for cif...

r

IGovernment of lndia

Ministry of Commerce and IndustryDirectorate General of Foreign Trade

Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi

F . N o. 1 1 / 329t20 1 O - I 1 / EC A 13 LS1, j'2tr c _ti?'1"6' 1 st.Ap ril, 20 1 3| ' Da-lE+;;r3V+

^,- 7')lul t>

Name of the Appellant : M/s. Gaurav Exportrades Pvt. Ltd.,93, Bashyakaralu Road, (West),R.S. Puram,Coimbatore- 641002.

Order appealed against : Order-in-original No. 32i95/199/0049/AM04 dated 6'n October, 2005 passed by Jt.

"::H;:[:^,Passed by: Mu*"rnl*Jr-

Appellate Authority &Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade

This appeal was filed on 13rh January, 2Q1 1 under section 15 of the ForeignTrade ( Development & Regulation) Act , 1992 M/s. Gaurav Exportrades Pvt. Ltd.,Coimbatore against Order-in-original No. 32/95/199/0049/AM 04 dated 6rn October,2005 passed by Jt. DGFT, Coimbatore.

2. Mls. Gaurav Exportrades Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore had obtained EPCG LicenseNo. PiCGl2154742 dated 5.03.1997 for CIF value of Rs, 22374401 under 10%concessional rate of customs duty scheme for import of Machines with an obligation toexport Cotton Knitted Embroidery Garments for F,O.B. value of US $ 248328/- within aperiod of 5 years with effect of the date of issue of the license. The Appellant wasunder obligation to submit export documents to the Licensing Authority showingfulfillment of export obligation, but they did not do so. Therefore, the AdjudicatingAuthority issued a show cause notice dated 26.05.2004.un der Section 14 to theAppellant and its directors. Since, the Appellant did not furnish the prescribeddocuments, the Adjudicating Authority in its Order In Original dated 6.10.2005 imposedpenalty of Rs. 44,74,880i- on the appellant and its Directors.

3. Aggrieved by tlSe above said Order In Original, the appellant prefened an appealstating that they had utilized the license for importation of capital goods and fulfilled theentire export obligation but they could not submit the export documents in time. Theyalso.,prayed to dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty amount.

4. Opportunity of Personal Hearing (PH) was granted to the Appellant o! 7.06.2011which was postponed to '13.07.201 1, 5.08.201 1 on the request of the appellant. ShriKishgre S.;:Althorized Representative appeared for Personal Hearing on 5.08.201 1 andstated that export obligation was fulfilled but the description of the export product shownon the $\ipiring Bills does not match with the descriptions of the license, He askedfurtheififrlb for depositing custom duty saved amount along with interest to the Customs

i V u-'""j--.-+-

l /'

:a *,',,*fliffi"il*ttu*,oDirectorate General of Foreign Trade

Udyog Bhavan, Neq' Delbi-l 1001 1

142,\9,31-*r\.F. No.11/104/20t0-t truCe.tl D# of Order : 8'h April, 2013

Date of dispatch | '):2.4-1413

Name of the ApPellant

Order appealed against

Order-in-APPealpassed by

lvlls Diamines and Chemicals Ltd.,

Plot No. 13,P.C.C. Area,PO Petrochemicals,Dist. Vadodara- 391 346'

Order-in-originalN o. 3 4 I 4 19 I AM-97 I ALS / AUDIT,EC Adated 16.07.2010passed by Jt.DGFT, Vadodara

Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authodty &n dditional Director General ofForeign Trade

Order-in.Appeal

This appeal was frled on 31,1 August, 2010, under section 15 of the Foreign Trade

tl"u"iop*"i& Regulation) Act , 1,992 Uiy l,t/s. Uamitt"s and Chemicals Ltd., Vadodara' against

b1a"r-in-originat Nolfal+tSlAM-SltntyALfDWnCA dated 16s Juiy,2010. passed bv JT DGFT'

Vadodara.

2. Ir{/s. Diamines and Chemicals Ltd', Vadodara' had obtained Adya199 License No'

Pfi-10022703 dated ?.03,1997 for CIF value of Rs'47,87,820/- oJS $11?4000) with export

obligation to export *t. ,"rutturrt piodo"t ut specified in the iicense for F O B value of

Rs.O-q,gs,soll- (us $ 195900) wittrin tz months with effect fror:r the date of issue of the iicense'

it . Appaf*t *as under oUtigatlon to submit export documents to the Licensing Authority showing

fulfillrnent of export oUfigutioillJ tfr"y aia ttot Ao so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued

a show cause notice dated S.Oa.ZbOS under Section 14 to the Appellant and its directors for initiating

f"*t urtlon under section r r tzj or 1r" FT (D&R) Act, 1992. since, rhe appellant failed to furnish

loesed DEEC books part fgil,'Ii*,i R*lization cetificate and also documents required under

il,irr-r;N"':#Jzs ili F il;t, ,006, the Adludicating Authoritv in its order In original dated

16.07.2010 imposed penalty of Rs.95,76,000/- on the appellant fimr'

3. Aggrieved by the above said order-ir- original, th'"pryt1T:ffY:1i""?1011 lt*SY:J. ,'sErlwyveurruv*vvr!*'*:;:-.-^-^:-^,,^-,^-'ir rrthtr ntl201 1-20.01.2012andof Personal Hearing (PH) was granted to the Appellant on Ii'.ll'lul1',1-l',1-1'^1^1 r^- D--"^-or;;;;il;.'t;ru.-8.*fi"b", i",i."rJ.a n p*ientalive of the appellant appeared for Personal

.1- -,- :---^r^l

;ffi;;;oio#oir*J;"il*;J;i*ensibmissro:r!"'d,?1n?:2:2"1;t1ne-ttrata:lT"t:.l"":;'fri#."ffiil;o Mr ;'iv *a exporteg-s2'6 Mr.': YI"l:gl?.Yl.i:f:i:i iXtil:ff::;Tli#"#;;1,,", i;p;;;;i. ""i:l.is-Mr

rhe appeitant n''o yi.gs,iF lener dated 5.10.2012 has

. .': , 'r.Page I of 2

,Tft:i11;;,"1iffi #H,ffi irlT3,r^liii:l,"raymenrof cusromsdurvaadinterestamounring

4' Accordingly, the case is examined with reJbrence to submissions made in the appeal andavailable records. It is observed rhat. the ,pp"ri*i^i* "tilized

impugnedl""r..-irry for parttmport. The appellant o* "t:,,:"1-:"-11" ;"0.:"J sNo vr *a ."ir_." ta.-"".Is lmpor or33' 18 MT of Ethylene Diamine by payment of customs duty saved amount along with interestamounting of Rs.48'82,714l- to,the custom, artrrotiiv

"ganst the impugned licenselAppellant hasproduced a copy of challan, evidencing.palmrri"i""l

"fr.. arry and interest. l

5' I, tlerefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 15 of the Foreign Trade(Development & Regutation) tct, 1ggz, isr_;rj;;;;r;e followins order:

lo

OrderF. No.11/104/2010- 1 t/ECA.I

Dated: 8th April, 2013

I 0 passed bynovo consideration. Applicant is directed to pr"d;;";;;;;;;;"il#;; ity for de

odara.

6': B. Singhal )Addl. Director General of oreign Trade

The Order-in-ori einal No. 3 4 r 41g / AM-g7 / ALS/AUDIT/ECA dated 1 6th Jury

::,::::,y:*..iT"'^y -*i9: *d th;.;;:; ;ffii#ua"r to rrre Adjudic4ting

It4ls. Diamines and Chemicals Ltd.,PIot No. 13, P.C.C. Area.PO Petrochemicals,Dist. Vadodara- 391 346.

Conv to: JI.DGFT, y adod.ara, for information and necessary action.

,4',;.. r1.i;,,,';.. .

tt,' .. :' ,. 'i'i.i..,.

,-''i. r,j', ,::'

. a, +.-,_,'- , ",.

Page2 of2

I

oGovemment of India

Ministry of Commerce and IndustryDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-i 1001 1.

Date of OrderDate of dispatch

F. No.1 1 1251 /2005-06ECA.I

Name of the Appellant


Order-in-Appealpassed by

: 8n April,2013:4-i

lEM/s Yusuf R. Dhanani, Ex Director,M/s. Divya Chemicals Ltd.,Ist Floor, 165, Famous Studio Building.Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West),Mumbai- 400011.

Order-in-OriginalNo. 03/01/002/005 1 0/AM-05dated20.12.2004passed by JI.DGFT, Mumbai

Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Additional Director General ofForeign Trade

Order-in-Appeal

This appeal was filed under seetion 15 of the Foreign Trade @evelopment &Rgeulation) AcL 7992 by Mr. Yusuf R. Dhanani, Ex Direcror of M/s. Dir,ya chemicals Ltd.,Mumbai, against order-in-original No.03/01/002i00510/AM-05/, dated 20.12.2004, passed byJI.DGFT, Mumbai.

2. Mlls. Dir.ya chernicals Lrd., Mumbai had obtained DEpB No.0361325g. dated11.02.1998 for a dury credit of Rs.3,58,071/- on post export basis with a condition that thel,would submit proof of payment of rearzation within six months from the date of shipment orpay back amount equivalent to the duty credit availed along wjth interest at the rare it Zqy" iocase. of failure to reaiize export proceeds. Since no proof of realization of export proceeds wasfumished, the Licensing Authority issued to the appellant firm Demand Notice asking them tofumish payment reahzation certi{icate from the bank against the shipping Bill No. rc60g6562gdated,S Jl.1997 for fo.b. vaJue of Rs.23,87,141/- on which duty

"r"dit *as availed in the form

of DEPB. The firm did not submit bank rcalization certificate. Tirereafter, a Refusal Memo dated24.06.2004 was issued refusing to issue further licenses but the firm did not respond. Therefore,the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice dated 6.12.2004 under Section 14 to theAppellant and its directors. Since, the appellant failed to fumish Bank Realization certificate, theAdjudicating Authority in its order-in-original, dated, 20.12.2004 imposed penalry ofRs.7,00,000/- on the appellant and its Direcrors.

2 of2

3' Aggrieved by the above said order in-originar, the appetant preferred an appeal statingthat the export realizzttion ttur U."n-r"""i""Jir: ; Bank and they have alreadl, submitted- whatever documents avlltaote .1trt irr"y r" *pp".t

"r said export realization to the RA.Appellant has stated in the appear that they rtuuJ *t received the order-in-origrnal in time.Appellant deputed its representative ro rhe orfice orrt,Dcri, il*"ilffi;'.oi'r"or* "

ora"r-in'ongnal was obtained,on 0s.0e.2005. _g'1.Jii"r,rr.'il;;;^tilfln'-oriein' on08.09.2005, they filed a lvpel) on 11.10.2005, *r,i"r, i, *irhi;;;";;'iio.'p.rioo ona.,Section 15 of FT(D&R) eli, tssz' rrr"y urro p*y"a1o ser aside rhe impugned order.

4' . various opportunities of personar Hearing were granted to the appelrant to produce theoriginal BRC' shri v.K.v' Kumar, AuthorirJ nJot"rrrr,u,ive of the appellant firm appeared forPH on 9'06'2011 and stated that original s""k iSdi*ti"n certificate is nor traceable now andrequested that DGFT may directly verifu from the conce-ed bank. Accordingry, .*n.,,'ution orrealization of export proceeds against ttre rrrip*rnt in*r*d in this case was called for from theof{tce of zonal Jr. DGFT; Mumbai. rn" oti iinlit rcpr, Mumbai vide its Do ierler dated24'01'2013 reported thar the concemed u;;;; of India. Mumbai has confirmed therealizafron in this case.

! The appeal is examined-with reference to the submissions made in the appeal and theRA's report. The o/o zona) Jt. DGFT, Murnbai r,u" "onnr-"a

r.o,n d* ;;#t"nk rhat theforeign exchange against the shipment involveoln ttris case tras been realized.

6' I, tlerefore, in exercise. of the powers vested in me, under section 15 of the ForeignTrade (Development & Regulatio ny eci WOZ,^ u',,.rrO"a, pass the following orde;:

Order

F. No.11/251/20 0s-06/ECA.r /

- - --.n. o,ao-in-o,igrl:"1ffijr:;;rr,,JI.DGFT, Mumbai, is set aside and the

"ur" is ."iuna"O

consideration.

,,'1vlAddl, Director

Dated:- 8s Aptil,2013-lb.2004, passed byRA for de-novo

. L.B. Singhal)Foreign Trade

datedback

rMr. Yusuf R. Dhanani, Ex Direcror.\4/s. Dirya Chemicals Ltd.,Ist Floor, 165, Famous Studio Buildins.Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (Westj.Mumbai- 400011.

copv to: Addl' DGFT, o/o zonar Addl. DGFT, Mumbai for information and necessary pcti

Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade

-3s.---".^]tt//eqs

H

torl

t,lf

.a Govemment of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and Industry

Directorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi- 1 1001 1.

,l

F.No.11/253/2005-06ECA.Ilp))Date of Order , 3|apd, ZOt:I Date of dispatch : l?-




M/s Y.usuf R. Dhanani, Ex Director,Mis. Dirya Chemicals Ltd.,Ist Floor, 165, Famous Studio Building,Dr, E. Moses Road Mahalaxmi (West),Mumbai- 400011.

Order-in-OriginalNo. 03/01/002/005 12iAM- 05dated24.12.2004passed by JI.DGFT, Mumbai


Order-in-Appeal

This appeal was filed under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade (Development &Regulation) Act, 7992 by Mr. Yusuf R. Dhanani, Ex Director of lr4ls. Dir.ya Chemicals Ltd.,Mumbai, against Order-in-Original No. 03/01/002/00512/AM- 05 dared 24.12.2004, passed byJt. DGFT, Mumbai.

2. IWs. Dirya Chemicals Ltd., Mumbai had obtained DEPB No.03613518, dated 6.03.1998,for a duty credit of Rs.2,32,752/- on post export basis with a condition that they would submitproof of payment of realization within six months from the date of shipment or pay back amounlequivalenl to the duty credit availed along with interest at the rate of 24o/o in case of failure torealize expon proceeds. Since no proof of realization of export proceeds was fumished, theLicensing Authority issued to the appellant firm Demand Notice asking them to furnish paymentrealization certiflcate from the bank against the Shipping Bill No. 1000011953, dated16.01.i998, for f.o.b. value of Rs.23,27,522.7 5/- on which duty credit was availed in the form ofDEPB. The firm did not subrnit bank realization certificate. Thereafter, a Refisal Memo dated4.08.2004 was issued refusing to issue further licenses but the firm did not respond. Therefore,the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice dated 6.12.2004 under Section 14 to theAppellant and its directors. Since, the appellant failed to furnish Bank Realization cerlificate, theAdjudicating Authority in its Order In Original dated 24.12.2004 imposed penalty ofRs.4,60,000/- on the appellant and its Directors.

3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, the appellant have prefened an appealstating that the export realization has been received by the Bank and they already submitted

realization to the RA.

lof 2

whatever documents available with them in suDoort of said exoort

,t

^Appellant has stated in the appeal that they have not received the Order-in-Original in time,

fAppellant deputed its representative to the Office of Jt.DGFT, Mumbai,and a copy of the Order-in-Original was obtained on 08.09.2005. On receipt of the copy of the Order-in-Original on08.09.2005, they filed a appeal on 11.10.2005, which is within prescribed time period underSection 15 of FT@&R) Ac! 1992. They also prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Various opportunities of Personal Heaing were granted to the appellant to produce theoriginal BRC. Sbri V.K.V. Kumar, Authorized Represenlative of the appellant firm appeared forPH on 9.06.2011 and stated that original Bank Realization certificate is not traceable now andDGFT may directly verify fiom the concemed bank. Accordingly, confirmation of realization ofexport proceeds against the shipment involved in this case was called for from the ofiice ofZonal It. DGFT, Mumbai. The O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT, Mumbai vide their DO leuer dated24.01.2013 reported that the concemed Union Bank of India. Mumbai has confirmed therealization in this case.

5. The appeal is examined with reference to the submissions made in the appeal and theRA's repod. The O/o Zora| Jt. DGFT, Mumbai has confirmed from the concerned bank thatthe foreign exchange against the shipment involved in this case has been realized.

6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me, under Section 15 of the ForeignTrade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the following order:

Order

F. No. 1 1/25 3/20 o s -o a nc *t/A' L\24 . April, 2013Dated: 8th-'i-=tv

The Order-in-Original No. 03/01/002100512iAM-05JI.DGFT, Mumbai is set aside and the case is rema.ndedconsideration.

back2.20M passed by

RA for de-novo

Singhal)of Foreign Trade

Mr. Yusuf R. Dhanani, Ex Director,Ir4ls. Dirya Chemicals Ltd.,Ist Floor, 165, Famous Studio Building,Dr. E. Moses Road, Mahalaxmi (West),Mumbai- 400011.

Copv to Addl. DGFT, O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT, Mumbai for information and necessary action. n

Iu,6'( Rama4drlil-Meena ;

Dy. Director General of foreign Trade''l::

-' "'

/t- Addr. Director

?of 2

r,.1"ti

t l', o . Oovernment of India

MinistrY of Commerce and IndustryDirectorate General of Foreign Trade

, Udvog Bhavan, New Delhi

l=tzq-2ibr,'izt1 it* z, izt3, 3tu, 31'8{ 3aG G. 31t^4F. No.l l/438, 504, 505/ Datiof Order : 8' April, 2013

l9!, 5^%J99,11r: . / Date of Dispatch I zS/ +(tntS510,i 2010-l l/ECA.i t

the i IWs..R4jesh Malleables Ltd., 4, G.I.D'C' Estate Phase-1,

Vatva, Ahmedabad' 387 445.

Shri. Praveen Chajjer M., 6, Kalyan Sociery,

Nr. Nagri Hospital, Ahmedabad- 380 006'-sttii oT.r*;"v parekl M', Shantikunj, z"d Flo9l

99, Sewree Wadala, Road No. 7, Mumbai 400 03 i '

Shri. Rohitbhai Chinubhai, Ramniwas Panchwati,

EIlis Bridge, Ahmedabad- 380 006.

Shri. Paresh Patel, Kedar, Opp. ISRO, Jodhpur Tekra,

Ahmedabad.Shri. Anuj Mehta R., Ramniwas Panchwati, Ellis Bridge,

Ahmedabad- 380 006.

Shri. Viplav Patel Lalbhai. Giriraj, B/s. C.N' High School'

Ambawadi, Ahmedabad.Shri. Gautambhai Shah V., Malay Baugh, Gota Char

Rasta, Gota, Ahmedabad.

Order-in-original No 08/420/AM 2A07/ECA da.led

14.12.2010 passed by Jt. DGFT' Ahmedabad'

Dr. L.B. Singhal,Appellate Authority & '

eddl. Director General ofForeign Trade

Order-in-APPeal

Name ofAppellants:

Order appealed

Order-in "^ lpeal

passed by :

Ill

lv

vi

vii

viii

Ir4/s.RajeshMalleablesLtd.,AhmedabadanditssevenDirectorshgdfiledSappeals againstbrder In Original No. 08/420/dM 2007IECA dated 14 12 2010 passed

Uy lt. nCif, Ahmedabad under Section 15 ofthe FT (D&R) Act' 1992'

2. On the aopdal ofthe appellant firm' Interim Order In Appeal No' 111505/2010'

iircClaur"a tiit:.n :uty, ZOit t uO been passed by the then Appellate Authority with

the direction to the appellant firm to submit the original documents along with the proof

of payment of custorn duty to the RA within 10 days of the order' The RA was also

directed to examine the documents submitted by the appellant firm and furnish factual

reDort on the case.

obiigatjon dhd rcalized foreign exchange US $ 121964.7 (in Rs. 3863742/-) againstUS$ 138600 (in Rs. 4372830/-). Hence, shortfall in fulfillment of export obligationworked out to 14901 kgs and excess import works out to 3729 kgs, against whichcustom duty and interest amounting to Rs.4,68,135/- had been paid by the appellant.The appellant had also paid penalty amount of Rs. 2,50,A0A/- vide Challan No. 7056dated 7.02.2011. It is also reported that since the appellant has submifted originalShipping Bills and their BRCs which can be accepted tor',,ards fulfillment of exportobligation and in the absenee of original DEEC book (Export) duly audited fiom theCustoms, the appellant may be advised to submit documents as per Public Notice 79daled 2.01.2006.

4. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Seotion 15 of theForeign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) AcI,1992, as amended, pass the followingorder:

Order

F. No. l 1/438, 504,505,506,507,508,509,s 10,/2010- 1 I /ECA.I

The Order In Original No. 08/420/AM 2007ECA datedJt. DGFT, Ahmadabad is set aside and these cases are remandednovo consideration. Appellant is directed to submitAhmedabad.

Dated: 8b April,2013

14.12.2414 passed byRA, for de-

to RA,

L.B. Singhal )Foreign Trade

1, Tg

^dil.Dk;;c.n"9"!I

ii

iii

lv

vi

vii

viii

trl/s. Rajesh Malleables Ltd.,4, G.I.D.C. Estate Phase-1,Vatva" Ahmedab ad- 382 445 .

Shri. Praveen Chajjer M., 6, Kalyan Society,Nr. Nagri Hospital, Ahmedabad- 380 006.Shri. Dhananjay Parekh M., Shantikunj, 2nd Floor,99, Sewree Wadala. Road No. 7, Mumbaj- 400 031 .

Shri. Rohitbhai Chinubhai, Ramniwas Panchwati,Ellis Bridge, Ahmedabad- 380 006.Shri, Paresh Patel, Kedar, Opp. ISRO, Jodhpur Tekra,Ahmedabad.Shri. Anuj Mehta R., Ramniwas Panchwati, Ellis Bridge,Ahmedabad- 3$0 006.Shri. Viplav Patel Lalbhai. Giriraj, B/s. C.N. High School,Ambawadi. Ahmedabad.Shri. Gautambhai Shah V., Malay Baugh, Gota Char Rasta,Gota. Ahmedabad.

Government of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and Industry

Directorate General of Forei gn TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-l 1001 1 .

F. No. I I/84/20 I 0 -1 1 /ECA -I




Date of Order : 8th April, 2013Date of dispatch :'{{

M/s Parkson Chemicals Pvt.Ltd.Baroda Office; 3 12, World Trade Centre

SayajigunjVadodara-390 005.Order-in-originalNa.34E-5141/AM|IIECAdated 29,06,2010passed by JI.DGFT, Vadodara,

Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate Authority &Additional Director General ofForeigr Trade

Order-in-Appeal

- This appeal has been filed on 13.0g.2010 under Secion 15 of fhe Foreign TradefDe.velopment. & Regulation)-Act, 1992, by M,is parkon Chemiea]s pvt.L"td, iadodiaagainst order-in-original No.34tr-5/4r/AMl):ECA dated 29.6.2010, passed by Jt.DGFT;Vadodara,

2' ws Parkson chemicars pvt.Ltd, Vadodara, had obtained value Based AdvancedLicence N0.3038166 dated 1903.1996 for ciF varue of Rs.15,66,945/- (US$a2930). Thelicencee_ firm was required ro ?lpgrt Multi Vitamin Capsules, ety.2,20,00,000 Capsuies forFoB value of Rs.3 8,14,250l- (us$ i04500) wirhin a plriod of ri monrhs from rhe dare ofissue ofthe licence The firm has submitted original export documents fbr issue ofEoDC toRA, vadodara, vide their letter dared 1s.2.rg9i. RA, vadodara. RA, vadodara, examinedthe docume.nls_and it was pointed out vide D.L, dated 24.6.1999 that (i) oridnar BRcs notsubmifted_(ii) Products exported is less, may clarif,. (iii)there ar" fiu" ,hipmJnts invorvei inpart-F of DEEC but Part-H showing four shipments only(iv)accountability of import item inexport products not certified by custom Authority as per iondition in part-g oi neeC tulI:lox cjpy of DEEC (Part-II) not furnished. Again t'hey responded vide their letter datedI5.11.1999, the case was examined and (a) it wai observed that originar BRC in respect oiShipment BillNo.904389 not furnished (b) weight of used input not menrioned in DEEC parr-F' Ths licence along with both part of DEEC were returned to the firm, Thereafter. noresponse received from the finn. on examination ofdocuments available on.ecord, RefounJthat the firm had not fulfilled export obrigation. The firm had obtained Value BasedAdvanced License. The firm have flrlfilled export obligation in terms of quantiry wise13000000 Tablets and value lr,ise 1s26442 (u^s$52161f against export obligation fixed2'20,00,000 capsules for Rs.38,14,25 0/- (us$ r 04500) i.e.sqx in quuniity t".-r-- d 49.g2%in value terms. The shortfall in quantity as well as value of terms is more ihan l5ol0, therefore,the licence converted from VABAL to eABAL. As per licence, the firm was alowed to

Page 1 of3

i.'.

o

import (l)105.577kgs of V^itamin A,B.p (2)165 kgs o Vitamin D3 B.p.(3)22.440 kes ofyi:,y'! B2 B.!. (4)14.220 kc.s gf_virami; iZE.i."tstzz.q4' ks,;i Vi;i;;i';...(6) 112'200 kg'd of Nicotinamiie B.p. and rlpi^16 tgs or carcium phantothenare B-p.:rI h:I-".tu]ltly.export obrigation to tr'J."t",'t oi'iloooooo rablets. Their erigibilityworr(s our to 13.26 kes of Vitamin B._t: Jhe firm has imported f s:.2: igr;fiili;;_,,hence' 139 97 kgs iliexcess. rhe aeficiencies po'ir*l irt by RA emained non compliedwith' The firm did not submit licence aro.g *rirt"DEEc Book part-t & II and other relevanidocuments, the firm was declared defaulter"vide deaiitri cir"rtu, No.596 dated 31.3.200s.As show cause notice dated 13,7'2009 ** i*r"Juno.iiection r4 for action under Sectionll(2) of FT(D&R) Act, 1992. The noticee n* *trr.t'rromitred the documents nor avairedthe PH. once again, rast opportuniry "r

rt..ri"J *"* gr.inted on 12.10.2009. The firm and. their directors neither attended personal hearingio*u[.ltt"a any written repry/documenrs.Since, the firm did nor produced'rhe. comd"#;;;;;;cribed export a".ri'L"i, ,ii*Lgfulfillment of l00yo eiport obligation, ti. aaj"ii""iiif eutnority in its above said orderimposed penalry of Rs.Zl,Os,sO0ll oort. n_^-'"*'-*""t '

3' Aggrieved by the above said -order-in-original,

the firm prefened an appear statinglY_t-tle

said o:d.er aileges parriar non-furfill-il"i-;;;il;rigation and the directors did norattend personal hearing etc. It further stated that :

(a) There was no excess import and the conversion of their VABAL into eABAL ,causedthe excess imports.

(b) Show cause notice and dreorder are crearry stating that the conversion vABAL in tcrQABAL by which rhey sulter an excess import ro the extenr quoted therein.

(c) J!,el t"quested a re-processing of the case and final sratus to arrive atactual excesslmport enabling them to pay the duty with interest.

(d) lt-ln:I n"r.: expressed their intenrion ro pay dury rvith pena) interesr, if sD1, eyes55impofis are.there. they may not be imposei a altdrent pinalty. Further, tfr.l.,uttr,is pending with BFR

4' six opportunities of personal hearing were granted to the appe ant and during the rstPH held on 25.2.13, the aufl.torized represenktive oithe firm, Mr.Babu Ezhumavil, appearedbefore me in personar hearing. He handecr *.t *itt""l"f'missions dated 23.02.2013. Heinformed that they have aheJdy applied to tr,. c",n*i*'"".r of custom, Mumbai, for thePyno1e of cajculation of paymeni

-of custom duty -j inil.".t. In the last pH held on25'03 2013' Mr' Sunil Kumar appeared before me and produced evidence of payment ofcustom duty and interest vide lefie; dated 25.03.2013.

5' I have examined trie facts and submissions made in the case by the firm. In this case,the Appellant has stated that rhey have not been abie to "o,''pr"t,

the export "urrg.-r""

,"ifor the entire shortfarl, they have a*"ay p"ia "rtr;;-;;;y and interesr ro rhe cusromAuthoritie-s' He produced beiore. me a copy ofchallan for the payment ofcusrom dufy to NewCustom House, Mumbai, showing payment.of custom Outy oiRs.O:,S2V_ *d p;y*."i ;fRs.1,76,075/ on 05.03.2013. He also assured that wfratever'composition i". ir r.{rl'r.Ji" U"paid to the DGFT in terms para 4.2g of Handbook of proceiures vol.I for regurarization ofthe case, they would immediately pay the same.

Page 2 of3

I 6' l, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers vested in me under Section 15 of the ForeignTrade @evelop'ment & Regulation) A;t, Dg2,as amended, pass the follorving ord.r,

- ---.'

Order

F. No. 11/84/2010 -11/ECAt/3

'p3_l 7f 33 out"a,

The Order-in-Origidal No. 34/F-5141/ AM|)ECA dated

-#Pril'2013

Adjudication Authority, RA, Vadodara, is set aside and the ciVadodara for de-novo consideration. Appellant is advised to

06.2010, passed byback to RA,

documents

. Lalit B. Singhal )of Foreign Trade

to RA, Vadodara,

I4ls. Parkson Chemicals pvt.Ltd.Baroda Office: 312, World Trade Centre

SayajigunjYadodwa-39\ 005.

Copy tq : Shri B.P.Bunker, Jt.DGFT,Vadodara, for information and necessary action.

Dy.Director General of Foreipn Trade

-iR--;tul+l>te

I

I

Page 3 of 3

-

o 1,4,",,,oT1ff#',:::lthu*,oDirectorate General of Foreign Trade


F.No.iii51212010-1IGCA.I DareofOrder : p!_April,2013Date of dispatch -TZ

Name of the Appellant :

Order appealed against.:


I\tVsl Texprint Engineers Pl't. Ltd.,"Texprint House" Chakudiya Mahadev Road,Rakhial,Almedabad - 380 023

Order in OriginalNo.08/123lAM 1O,ECAdated 27.01.201 IPassed by JI.DGFT, Ahmedabad.


Order-in-Appea!

This appeal was filed on 15.3.2011 under section 15 of the Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, by M/s. Texprint Engineers P\4. Ltd.,Ahmedabad, against Order-in- Original No. 08/123lAM i 0 ECA daled 27 .07.2011,passed by JI.DGFT, Ahmedabad.

2. M/s. Texprinl Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, had obtained quantity basecr

Advance Authorization No. 0810052786 dated 26.12.2005 for import of 1 Nos. ofHabasit Make Rubber Printing Blanket Size 34750 x 1650 mm (2.6 mm thickness) GradeEnu-20EL as per General Note No, 4 of PN 46, dated 6.11.2002 on net to net basis for aCIF value of USD 11100/- (Rs.5,06,160/-) with an obligation to export 1 No. of BranoNew Texprint make 8 colour semi auto flat bed printing (dying) machine,46 incU49inch prinl width with 1 No. Habasit make Rubber printing Blanker with ancillaryequipment and set of essential spare Brand New semi auto 46 inch/48 inch printing widthfor an FOB value of Rs. 22,80,000/- (USD 50000/-). The firm was required to submitexport documents to the licensing Authority shor.r'ing fulfillment of export obligation, burthey did not do so. Therefore Office of Jt.DGFT, Ahmedabad, issued a Demand Noticedated 21.05.2009 calling for export documents evidencing fulfil1ment of exponobligation and they were also given a personal hearing vide the above demand notice,However, they did not submit any documents or appearcd for personal hearing.

Therefore, the firm was declared as defaulter. A Show Cause Notice dated 18.2.2010 was

issued under Section 14 for action under Section 11 (2) of FT (D&R) Act, 1992. Thefirm neither submitted the documents nor availed the PH. Vide letters dated 253.241Aand,21.6.2010, the firm was again requested to submit the export documents. The firm

Page 1 of3

vide their letter dated 22!7 .201.0 submitted the proof of payment of Rs' 1,400/- being the

1 application fee of l9'o duty saved amount against the iost shipping bill No' 152. The' notice firm also submitted original BRC on 30.06.2010 showing realization of export

proceeds of Rs.25,06,000. The firm was asked to pay customs duty and interest within 15

days vide letter dated 25.11.2010. Since the firm and its Directors did not avail the

opporturfty ofpersonal hearing allowed and also failed to regularize the case by makingpa)ment of customs duty and interest, the Adjudicating Authority in its above said order

imposed penalty of Rs. 25,0001- on the firm and its Directors jointly and severely under

Section 13 of Foreign Trade (D&R) AcL, 7992.

3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, the firm prefened an appeal

stating that Original EP copy of shipping bill and original authorization had been

misplaced. The original BRC (having 13Vo greater foreign exchange realization than

obligation required to be fulfilled) has duly been submitted to the Adjudicating

Authority.

4. Ten opportunities of i"ersonal Hearing were granted to the appellant and during

last PH held on 13.03.2013, the Authorized representative of the firm Sfui R.V. Modistated that they have completed the exports and they have fully realized the exports

proceeds. In facts as against the stipulated export obligation of Rs.22'80'000i- they have

iealized exports proceeds to the extent of Rs. 25,06,000. He further informed that earlier

they had been able to submit only a provisional copy of the shipping bill which was not

acceptable towards discharge of export obligation by RA, Ahmedabad. Now shipping billhas been finalized. He has submitted before me a copy of shipping bill which shows that

this has already been finalized by the custom Authority. He has also produced a copy ofBank Certificate ofExporf and Realization showing rcalizatton ofexports proceeds to the

extent of Rs.25,06,000/-. He also trformed that he has already submitted original

shipping bill, duly finalized and original BRC also with the RA, Ahmedabad and he

produced a copy of Receipt dated 31.1.2013.

5. I have examined the facts and submissions made in the case by the firm. The

appellant has stated that it has completed the exports and it has firlly realized the exports

proceeds. In fact, as against the stipulated export obligation of Rs'22,80,000f , they have

iealized exports proceeds to the extent of Rs.25,06,000/-. Representative of appellant

firm furthei informed that earlier they had been able to submit only a provisional copy ofthe shipping bill which was not acceptable towards discharge of export obligation by RA,

etrmedauaa. Now shipping bill has been finalized . He has submitted before me a copy ofshipping bill which shows that this has already been finalized by the Custom Authority.

He-has also produced a copy of Bank certifrcate of Export and Realization showing

realization of exports proceeds to the extent of Rs.25,06,000i-. He also informed that he

has already submitted original shipping bill, duly finalized and original BRC also with

the RA, Ahmedabad and has shown a copy of receipt dated 31.01.2013, form RA'

Ahmedabad.

{'" Page 2 of3

a 6. I, theref&e, in exerciseForeigrr Trade (Development &order:

of the powers vested inRegulation) Act, 1992, as

me, under Section 15 of the

amended, pass the following

Order

F. No.11/512/2010_11tEC^y Z l1l, 3 J? >. ../,-.

Dated:-. 9?Aprit,2013

The Order-in-origifal No. 08/123lAM 10,ECA, dated 27.01,20l i, passed by the

Adjudication Authority, RA, Ahmedabad, is set aside and the Rse \\ remanded back to

fu\, Ahmedabad for de-novo examination. \/ I I

,I \%. L.B.singhar)i . nAOl, Director Gentral bf Foreign Trade

M/s. Texprint Engineers PvtJ Ltd.,"Texprint House" Chakudiya Mahadev Road,RakhialAhmedabad-380 023

Copy to: Shd A.K.

=3=-1-"-t6l*lao ry


Page 3 of3

Irl

I

It.I

F. No. 1 1/33712009-10IECA.I




Govemment of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and IndustryDirectorate General of Foreign Trade


Date of Order : 9s APril, 2013' Date of dispat ch -TTMr. Bijaykumar D' Agarwal,Ex-Director of M/s. Vimla Fashion Pvt Ltd',

Cio, 27, Prernatirth Pan-1. Jodhpur Teka'Satellite Road, Ahmedabad- 3 800I5.

Order-in-original No. 08/23lAM 09/ECA dated

8th February, 2010 Passed bY Jt. DGFT,

Ahmedabad.Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate AuthoritY &Additional Director General ofForeign Trade

Order-in-APPeal

This appeal was filed on 16th March, 2010 under Section 15 of the poreign Trade

(Developmeni & Regulation) Act, 1992, by Mr. Bijaykumar D. Agarwal, (Ex-Director ofNVs. Vimla Fashion Fvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad, against Order-in-original No. 08/23lAM 171ECA

dated 8tb February, 2010 passed by JI.DGFT, Ahmedabad,

2. IvUs.Vimla Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad had obtained Advance License No.

2312254 dated 17.01.1995 for cIF value ofRs.7,63,0361 (JS $24185) for import of 15114

kgs. ofPolyester Filament Yam as specified in the License^ with the obligation to expoft the-

tlZ+O tgs of Dyed & Printed Fabrics made from 100% PFY for F.O.B. value of

nr.tO,f ziSZl- 1US $ :ZzsOl within prescribed time period The Appellant was under

oblidtio; to sutmit export documents to the Licensing Authority showing flrlfillment of

expo'rt obligation, but it iailed to do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show

cause notici dated 7.02.2005 under Section 14 of FT (D&R) Act, 1992, to the firm and its

direotors. Since, the Appellant did not fumish the prescribed documents, the Adjudicating

Authority in its -order-in-original,

dated 8.02.2010, imposed penalty of Rs.30,52,144f on the

appellant and its Dhectors.

l. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, the appellant prefened the appeal stating

it at *re !-."-ises and. factories of job workeis have been raided by the Central Excise

Department. The export documents und oth"t reports have been seized by the Customs' The

-utt",. i, su-judice a; the Customs and Excise Departmenl have alleged violation ofthe Advance

License scheme. They also prayed for waiver ofpre-deposit'

4. Opportunity of Personal Hearing (PH) was gtanted to the Appellant on 706'2010'

1g.07 .20i0,20.08:2010, 7.10.2011, 17.11.2011but no one appeared in PH and no evidence in

support ofthe appeal was submitted.

5. The appeal is examined with reference to the submissions made and the available

records. Thc appellant was under obligation to submit the prescribed export documents for

Page 1 of2

:j discharge of its export obligation against the Advance license, which lt has lalled to do. the

discharge of export obligation against the impugned license. Appellant failed to submit a copy

, ,' ofthe same along with the appeal or subsequently, during 5 PHs granted to the appellant. The

,,' O appellant has also failed to produce any evidence for regularizing the case at the time ofPersonal Hearing. Therefore, there is no ground or justification to interlere with the order.

Moreover, The appellant has also not submitted proof of depositing pre-deposit of penalty

amount along with their appeal. In terms of provisions of Section 15 of the Foreign Trade

fDevelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992, no such appeal shall be entertained unless the amount

ofpenalty or redemption charges has been deposited by the appellant.

6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the Foreign

Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the follorving order:

/ UlsF.No.1 r/3371200s-1}tECA.r / 3 1 p.l, 7 t Q o| - /' '' /

The order-in-origi#l No. 08/23/AM0IIECA dated 8th F

DGFT, Ahmedabad is upheld and the Appeal is dismissed.

/'1 \tY@ / t\'-f L/'d'ar Director Gentra

Dated: 9!h April,2013

I0 passed by Jt.

. L.B. Singhal)Foreign Trade

It4r. Bijaykumar D. Agarwal,Ex-Director of lvI/s. Vimla Fashion Plt. Ltd.,Clo,27 , Prematith Part-I, Jodhpur Tekra,Satellite Road,Ahmedabad- 3 80015.

Copy to : Adtll. DGFT, Ahmedabad for information and necessary action. /,,rL( nu,r,/nK ivr.nu )

Dy. Director General offoreign Trade

\

Page 2 of 2

:t Government oflndiaMinistry of Commerce and IndustryDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi- 1 1001 1 .

a

F.No.11/98/2008 -[V/ECA.I /rrrru"oforder : lOriApril,2013

f -'

'hut" ofdispatch 4Name of the Appellant



. Ivt/s Adarsh Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited,, P.O. Box No. 13,

Udhna- 394 210,Surat.Order-in-originalNo. 34ll 1 5/AM95/ALS/ECAdated 10.04.2006passed by Jt.DGFT, Vadodara'


Order-in-Appeal

This appeal was filed on 26s May,2008 under Section 15 of the Foreign

Trade (Development & Regulation) Act 1992, by N4/s Adarsh Chemicals &Fertilizers Limited, Sura, against Order-in-original No. 34ll 15/AM95iALS,€CA'dated 10*.April, 2006 passed by JI.DGFT, Vadodara.

2. M/s. Adarsh Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited, had obtained Advance License

No.PlLl3499434 daled6.12.1994 for CIF value of Rs.83,60,750/- (US$265000) forduty fiee import of inputs with obligation to export the resultant product as specified

in the License for f.o.b. value of Rs.11,24,530f flJS $352600) within 12 months

from the date ofissue ofthe license. The firm was under obligation to submit export

documents to the Licensing Authority showing fulfillment of export obligation, but

they did not do so. Therefore, the Adjudicating Authority issued a show cause notice

dated 16.05.2005 under Section 14 to the Appellant for initiating penal action under

Section 1 1 (2) of the FT @&R) Act, 1992. Since, the Appellant did not produce the

relevant export documents showing fblfillment of export obligation, then the

Adjudicating Authority in its Order In Original dated 10.04.2006 imposed penalty ofRs.59,21,400/- on the firm and its directors.

3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original, M/s Adarsh Chemicals &Fertilizeri Limited, Surat, preferred the appeal stating that they had substantially

fulfilled the export obligation but due to techno-economical and commercially

uncontrollable and extraneous reasons, they could not fulfilled the 100% export

obligation. The documents for the goods exported could not be submitted for the very

genuine and compelling reasons. The operation ofthe company closed and thele is no

source of inoome for the company for last couple ofyears.

Pe oe I nfi

o 4. I have examined the complete facts oflhe case and find as follows:

(D The appellant has claimed that the Order-in-Original was sewed to them on

i6.04)b08 and they filed appeal on 26.05.2008 The appellant' therefore' was

advised to fumish evidence in support of their claim to justiry the delay but

failed to do so. As per section ls (t) of Foreign Trade (Development &

Regulation) Act, 199i, an appeal has to be filed within a period of 45 days from

daG of receiving of the ord,er' The Appellate Authority has powers to condone

any delay beyoid this period of45 days if sufficient reasons are shown for

th; delai, only if the appeal is filed within 30 days after the expiry of the

time limit oi aS auyt' However, beyond this period, i'e, 45 + 30 days' an

appeal under Section 15 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act'

can't be entertained.

(ii) Moreover, The appellant has also not submitted proof of depositing pre-deposit

of penalty amorrrit alorrg with his appeal. In terms of provisions of Section 15

of the foreign Trade (Sevelopmeni & Regulation) Act, 1992' no such appeal

shall be entirtained unless the amount of penalty or redemption charges has

been deposited by the appellant.

(iiD Opportunity of Personal Hearing (PH) was granted to the Appellant on

6.04.2010 in which Shri K.Lingraj, Advocate of the Appellant firm apq919d

and requested adjournment. ecJordingly, next PH was given on 20'04'2010.in

which no one appeared. Further PH was granted on 23 04'2012 in which aiso

no on" upp"ur.d" Anothor PH was granted on 4 '06 '2012' 5 '07 '2012 in u'hich no

one appeared and no new evidence fumished'

(iv). The Order-in-Original very clearly states that the appellant had not submitted

the prescribed original documenti showing disch-arge of export obligation

against the impugned lioence. This is not disputed by the appellant Appellant

iri its submissioni in paragraph 5 has also admitted that it has not fulfilled the

export obligation for-theiaiance quantity' The appellant has also failed to

,"gol.it" ih. ,*. by payment oi "uttot duty saved amount along with

interesttotheCustomsautl'o.iryevenatthetimeofappealinspiteofthefactthat ample time was given to them and number of opportunities of PH were

provided.

5. in view of the facts given in paragraph 4 above' there is no ground or

justification to interfere with thE o.der-in-otiginai passed by the adjudicating authority

Page 2 of3

l,/

I

6. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of the

Foreign Trede @evelopment & Regulation) Acl, 1992, as amended' pass the following

a order:Order

passed by JI.DGFT, Surat is upheld and the Appeal is

F. No. 11/e8l200 t-osnc*y'3 / ff Dated:

/The Order-in-Original No. 3411 I 5/AM95/ALS,QCA

1 Oth April,20l3-111il" April, 2006

. Lalit B. Singhal )Addl. Director of Foreign Trade

Ir4/s. Adarsh Chemicals & Fertilizers Limited,P.O. Box No. 13,

Udhna- 394 210, '

Surat.

Copy to: Jt.DGFT, Vadodara, for information and necessary actron.| 4.,

/wrJ-( Rambhaid Meena )

Dy. Director General of foreiga Trade

u*){1fit'rt

ti i

.o . Oovemment of IndiaMinistrv of Commerce and Industry

Directoiate General of Foreign Trade


B1-et SLel.F.No.11/147:/2012-13/ECA.I I O*ofOrder : 10'n April'2013

I Dute of dispatch 2-E q1l? "

Name of the Appellant Mis esim fharmachem lndustries'

Plot No. 37, Ashwamegh Industrial Estate'

Order aPPealed against .

Order-in-APPealpassed bY

Bavla- S arklej Road, Changodar'

Tal. Sanand, Dist.AhmedabadOrder-in-original No' 08/27lAM1 0'{ECA

dated 12.72.2009passed bY Jt.DGFT, Ahmedabad'

Dr. Lalit B. SinghalAppellate AuthoritY &.ddiitional Director General of Foreign Trade

Ortler-in-APPeal

This appeal was filed on 25t June, 2012 under Section 15 of the Foreign Trade

(Development & negulatioif-i",-7sgz, uy-y/t^'-Ati- Pharmachem Industries'

Ahmedabad, against order-i#"eillN"' -0bnz7i'rra ronca' dated llh December' 2009'

passed by JI.DGFT, Ahmedabad'

2. lvl/s. Asim Pharmachem Industries, Ahmedabada h1d obtained Advance Licence

No. 081004636i out.a oz'oi'irjiE i"t Cb value of Rs'24'29'9951'(US $55290) for

import of lodine 2910 kg ;th ; "bid4"1;; exPort.3000 kg of Methvl Iodine for

F.O.B. value of Rs'29,17,200 ({JS$ 669-0s) for export of 2500 kgs of Methvl Iodine

within 1g months from tfr. a.tl,""f i*". oi tnr auLf."ti-tion. The Appellant was under

oblisation to submit export dJttt-tntt to tftt licensing Authority showing fulfillment ol

#fi "od;';iri *il.v Jra *t ao 'o'

rn""rot"' the Adiuclicating Authoritv issued a

show cause notice dated ZS.O?.i009-*aer Section ia t11lie Appellant *l^ftt^ih"ttllifor initiating penal action "rd;;i;,t*

11 (2) of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992.,Since, tre

Appellant failed to ,"guruo".--tftt """"ss import by payment of custom duty saved

amount along ' *ith ittt",e'fio- trt" Cutton'tt Authorrty' therefore' the Adjudicating

Authority in its order-in-ode*"r, irtJll ,1i.zoos, imposed penalty of Rs 24 ,29'9951'

on the APPellant firm.

3. Aggrieved by the above said Order-in-Original' the Appellant preferred an appeat

stating that thev had frilf,rrei ei lii" "ii97"!1ic."'l:l and thev are wiliing to pav custom

duty saved amount along *id il;;;tG Ct'itom' Authorirv for reguiarization of the

excess imPorl. "., .h*il- x"; iti;:i 6,.r .r I *$*1.

,Li .r

;"=i1i1."""

I

I+ The uoo.il hu, been examined. It is noticed that the Order-in-Original was issued

O * tft. eppellani on l2.l?.2009. As per remarks on top of order (submiued by firm)' it has

been received by the Appellant in 22.12.209. This has not been disputed by the

Appella*. The Appellani frrm has fiied appeal on 25 '06'2012' As per section 15 (1) of

Foieign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, an appeal has to be filed within a

perioi of45 days from date of receipt of the order. The Appellate Authority has powers

io "oodone

anydeiay beyond this pitioa of+S, days if suffrcient reasons are sho''n for

the delay, only if the-appeal is filed within 30 days after the expiry of the time limit of

+S auyr. However, beyond this perioa, i'e., 45 + 30 days, an appeal under section 15 of

Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, can't be entertained'

5.Moreover,tlreAppellanthasalsonotSubmittedproofofdepositingpre-depositofpenalty amount along with their appeal. In terms of provisions of Seclion 15 of the

ioreign Trade @evelopment & Regulation) Act, Iggl,no such appeal shall be entertained

udesl the amount of penalty or redEmption charges has been deposited by the Appellant.

6,Appellantinitsietterdated04.04.2011,submittedon25.06,2012,hasalsostatedthat they did not wish to be personaily heard and appeal may be decided on merit'

T.I,therefore,inexerciseofthepowersvestedinmerrnderSection15oftheForeigrtTrade (Development & Regulatio n) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:

0rder

F. No. 1 1/1 47120 12-13 /EC A-I

The appeal is dismissed on grounds of being time non-payment of

pre-deposit.

B. Singhal )Addl. Director Foreign Trade

IWs. Asim Pharmachem Industries,Plol No. 37, Ashwamegh Industrial Estate,

B avla- S arkhej Road, Changodar,l al. sanano, u1$.Ahmedabad.

Copy to: JI.DGFT, Ahmedabad, for information and necessary action i fl/,ly

( Ramariand Meena )Dy. Director General offoreign Trade

t."t'D

lr,oGovernment of lndia

Ministry of Commerce and IndustryDirectorate General of Foreign Trade

Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi.1

F. No.1 1 t31 3t2002-0st EcA.t I W3 Dated: 15h April, 2013

Name of the Appellant : M/s. pharmed Medjcare pvt. Ltd.,Pharmed Garden,Whitefield Road,Bangalore- 560048.

Order appealed against : !_elusll gf Advance License vide Letter No.071241040100066/AM 03 d ated 27In August,2002 & Letter No. O7l21l040l296lAM03/3095 dated 24.02.2003 issued bv Jt.DGFT, Bangalore.

Passed by :

ORDER-IN.APPEAL

Mukesh Bhatnagar,Appellate Authority &Addl. Director General of Foreion Trade

_ lhir appeal was filed on 21"t March, 2003 under section 1E of tfre ForeignTrade.(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 by M/s. pharmed Medicare p\rt. Lt;.,Bangalore against Refusal of issue of Advance License vide letter No.07124104010o066/AM 03 dated 27th August, 2002 & Letrer No. o7t21te4ot2g6tAM03/3095 dated 24.02.2003 issued by Jt. DGFT, Bangatore.

2. M/s. Pharmed Medicare pvt. Ltd., Bangarore had fired Advance LicenseApplication No. PMPL/AL/Ito-z/2002 dated 12.0s.2002 which was rejected by the Jt.DGFT, Bangalore vide their tetter No, o7t24to4otooo66/Atvt 03 aatel zl .oe.2ooz onthe grounds that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported that there werecertain cases against the appellant firm and another firm in the name and style M/s.Pharmed chemicals "Pharmed Gardens", white Fierd Road, Bangalore ofieratingunder the same address and had obtained several Advance Licenses and had mis-utilized the imported materials. The Jt. DGFT held that both the firms operating fromthe same address were closely interlinked in the duration 1994-9s, 1996-97 p"r-iod a.at least one Director was common to both these companies. The RA rejected theAdvance License application vide their letter dated 27.08.202 till the customs dutiesalong with interest thereon is recovered from the other firm M/s. pharmed chemicalsLimited, Pharmed Gardens, white Field Road, Bangalore. Aggrieved witn thisRejection Letter, the firm had fiied review application bef-ore the nA]eangalore whichwas also rejected vide their letter dated 21lI/i.OZ.2003.

I Aggrieved with the denial of issue of Advance License vide Letter dared24.02.2003, M/s. Pharmed Medicare pvt. Ltd., Bangalore had preferred tne appeai. Themarn argument of the appellant is that the RJDGFT failed to appreciate that the fact thatthere was common director for some time in 1gg4-95 and 1g96-97 M/s. pharmeo

$ w'*'

l' '.','

l.'. aevidence reghrding fulfillment of export obligation by the said M/s. Pharmed ChemicalsLtd. The Adiudicating Authority has correctly refused grant of further AdvanceLicenses to the appellant due to the strong possibility of its relation with anothercompany who has defaulted in fulfilling export obligation. The appellant's arguments intheir appeal are not convincing. Therefore, there is no justifiable ground to interferewith the order in original passed by the Jt. DGFT, Bangalore.

7. I, therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 of theForeign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the followingorder:

IF. No.1 1 t313t2002-03/ECA. I I 1t14 Lt

/ -- r

The appeal is dismissed.

Order

Dated: 1Sth April, 20'13\?

U tul)!r"----( Mukesh Bhatnagar )

Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade

M/s. Pharmed Medicare Pvt. Ltd..Pharmed Garden,Whitefield Road,Bangalore- 560048.

\,.Copy to Addl. DGFT, Chennai for information and necessary action. t,

l,V1 namlifio Meena )

Dv. Director General of foreion Trade

nl,

POGovernment of lndia

Ministry of Commerce & lndustryDepartment of Commerce

(Directorate General of Foreign Trade)Room No.1, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110107.

F.No.1 1 t 123t201 1 -12tEc A.t | < t e z, 3 1 d t-. . April 01,2013

Name of the Appellants: M/s lcon Cables Limited,A-291, lst Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-l,New Delhi-110020.

0512510401017 4l AM06/DES.ll/CLA. dated 281121201 0passed by FTDO, Olo Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, Delhi.

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

Order appealed against:

Order passed by: Shri VK SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

Nipum Rathi, Managing DirectorAbdul Lateef, Manager-Finance

Appeared on behalf of:

M/s lcon Cable Ltd., New Delhi filed an appeal against the Adjudication Order No.05125104010174/4M06/DES-||iCLA dated 2811212010 passed by FTDO, CLA, Delhi, interms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed on the appellant firm and its Directors fornon-fulfillment of export obligation against Advance Authorization No.0510164292 dated12il08t2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Mls lcon Cable Ltd. obtained an AdvanceAuthorization No.0510164292 dated 12108/2005 to import for a CIF value ofRs.72,95,508/- subject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultant product asper conditions of authorization in question. On expiry of the export obligation period,the appellant firm did not submit the prescribed documents to the Regional Authorlty insupport of fulfillment of export obligation. Hence, proceedings under Foreign Trade(D&R) Act 1992 were initiated and the Adjudicating Authority imposed flscal penalty onthe appellant firm.

3, AggrievedCable Ltd., Newnot made any

by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated 28112/2010, M/s lconDelhi filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been submitted that they have

have already

k-[Yngffd{r--

O

surrendered the same with its all supporting annexures to the office of Zonal Jt. DGFT,CLA, New Delhi. Hence, appellants requested to withdraw the Adjudication Order.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 0411212012 butno one appeared. One more opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 22101!2013.On that day Shri Abdul Lateef, Manager-Finance appeared and requested 2-weeks moretime to show documents. Hence one more opportunity of personal hearing was grantedon 121O212O13. On that day Shri Abdul Lateef, Manager-Finance appeared andrequested to hear the case along with another case listed on 05103/2013. His requestwas agreed and one more opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 1810312013.

On that day Shri Nipum Rathi, Managing Director and Shri Abdul Lateef, ManagerFinance appeared and.stated that authorization in question was not utilized and unutilizedauthorization was surrendered at Regional Authority. He produced copy of RegionalAuthority's letter issued from file No. 05/261165/000771AM12 dated 1210812005 statingthat the authorization No. 0510164292 dated 1210812005 have been surrenderedunutilized and cancelled.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record and submission ofcopy of Regional Authority's letter No. 051261165/000771AM12 dated 1210812005 statingthat the said authorization has been surrendered unutilized and cancelled. lf theauthorization was surrendered unutilized at Regional Authority and Regional Authorityhas cancelled the same, cause of action does not arise. Case therefore, needs review byRegional Authority.

6. l, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me vide Section 15 read with Section13 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, '1992, as amended, pass thefollowing order:

F.No.1 1 I 1 23 I 2O1 1 -1 zlEC A.l April 01,2013ORDER

1. The Adjudication Order No.05/251040/0174lAM06/DES-ll/CLA dated 2811212010passed by the FTDO, CLA, Delhi is set aside and case is remanded bafk to the RegionalAuthority for de-novo action. ll n

\-o.\c- ("{ve0ar",s'(V.K. Srivastava)

Addl. Director General of Foreign TradeM/s lcon Gables Limited,A-291, lst Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-l ,

New Delhi-110020.

Copy to: Ji. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi.

OltL-'

,lkofForeign Trade

,? L-Dy. Director General

oGovernment of India

Ministry of Commerce and IndustryDepadment of Commerce

Directorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhawan, New Delhi-l10011

Order appealed against : Order-in-Original No.05/40/0003/AM0S/DES-IV/CLA dated 2010912011 passed by FTDO,O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-110002.

April 01,2013

: M/s. Theeta Electricals Pvt. Ltd.,No. 18, Sector-3, IMT Manesar,Gurgaon-122 050.

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

: V. K. SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

: Manjit Singh, Adviser

M/s Theeta Electricals Pvt, Ltd. filed an appeal against theAdjudication Order No. 05/26i40/0003/AM05/DES-|V/CLA dated 2OlOgl2Ol1passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal Joint DGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which afiscal penalty was imposed on M/s Theeta Elechicals Pvt. Ltd. for non-fulfillment of export obligation against advance authorization No. 0510123761dated 2010412004.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Theeta Electricals Pvt. Ltd.obtained an advance authorization No. 0510123761 dated 20104/2004 toimport for a CIF value of Rs. 25,09,685f (US $ 55646) subject to thecondition that the firm shall export the resultant product as per conditions ofauthorization in question. The appellant firm was under obligation to submitthe=ples_clbe{d-_o_cuments to the Regional Authority in support of fulfillment oftheir export obligation within specified period. But the qppellant firm failed to

.-t"Lj*'f-'\ \l rl

,r{5; 3:*:' t*, lr-eic- I^6\A\aJrq&F*' " ' "'q\]-jlf -

$d,1{ '., !l\ ' .: I

tDll-12-F.No.11151olmr Ec^-t l<t 6 t s I GE


Passed by

Present on behalf ofthe appellant

/o submit tlie export documents. Hence, proceedings were iniiiated underForeign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Ad,ludicatingAuthority imposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated2010912011, M/s Theeta Electricals Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal. In the appeal ithas been submitted that appellants had fulfilled the export obligation againstthe said advance authorization. In support of their claim, appellants havesubmitted attested copies of ANF-4F, Statement of Exports made, Statementof lmports made, photocopies of Export Promotion copies of shipping bills (18in nos.), Cenvat declaration duly signed by Chartered Accountant,Appendix23 Stock Register duly signed by Chartered Accountant andAuthorization dated 201Q412004.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on1011212012 but no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. Nextopportunity of personal hearing was granted on 2110112013 but no oneappeared again. One more opportunity of personal hearing was granted on1410212013. On that day Shri Manjit Singh, Authorized Representativeappeared and stated that prescribed documents have already been submittedat Regional Authority. He further stated that there was some shortfall inexport obligation for which customs duty saved plus interest have been paid.He produced original receipt of payment of Rs. 1,79,440l- towards paymentof customs duty saved plus interest on excess imports which was returnedback to Shri Manjit Singh and photocopy was retained. He requested 3-weeks time to produce confirmation letter from Regional Authority regardingsubmission of prescribed documents. Time was allowed and one moreopportunity of personal hearing on admission was granted on 13/03/2013 (toproduce confirmation letter from Regional Authority). On that day Shri ManjitSingh, Authorized Representative appeared and produced a copy ofRegional Authority's letter No. 512610401003lAM05iDES-lV/CLA dated11/03i2013 stating that appellants have submitted original shipping bills andoriginal bank realization certificates (each 18 in numbers). In previoushearing, Shri Manjit Singh already showed TR-6 regarding payment ofcustoms duty saved plus interest on excess imports made. He also produceda letter from customs dated 08i03/2013 showing that full quantiiy of inputshave not been imported.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record, RegionalAuthority's letter confirming submission of original shipping bills and originalbank realization certificates (each 18 in numbers) along with letter fromcustoms dated 0810312013 evidencing payment of customs duty saved plus

interest on excess imports. As original shipping bills, bank realizationcertificates, utilization certificate from customs are available and alsoappellants have paid customs duty saved plus interest on excess imports (asper their calculation), case needs review by Regional Authority. Appellantswill produce original TR-6 and original Utilization Certificate from customs

\

along with calculation sheet of duty and interest payment and statement onquantity of inputs used at Regional Authority within one.month of receipt ofOrder-in-Appeal. ;. ;.-, L-.". "**- {l ,l

,S";''**,1-'ocrL;*avharr=

o6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 15read with section.l3 of the Foreign Trade (Deveropment & Reguration) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:

ktr47-- " oRDER

F.No.1 1/51 0/aqcEf/ECA-l April 01 , 2013

1. The Adjudication Order No.05/26t4Ot0OO3tAMOS/DES_tVlCLAdated 20/09/2011 passed by FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set asideand the case is remanded back to the Regionai Authority for denovo consideration and finalization.2. Appellants are directed to submit original TR_6 and originalUtilization certificate from customs arong with carcuration sieetof duty and interest payment and statement on quantity of inputsysgd aJ Regionat Authority within one month of ieceipi of Order_in-Original.

3. At the time of review by Regional Authority, if any further excessimport is calculated by Regional Authority ihat is bver and abovethe excess imports for which customs duty saved plus interesthave already been paid, customs duty saved along with intereston that portion will have to be paid by appellanti with in onemonth of issue of Demand Notice by Regional Authority.

\0[-ltc/.ts-uefiarrv

Addr. Director Generar lY 5;,'?11fi18:?{l (

M/s. Theeta Electricals pvt. Ltd., t

No. 18, Sector-3, IMT Manesar,Gurgaon-122 050.

Copy to : Tne lt. DGFT, CLA for information and necessary action.

Dy. Director General

toGovernment of India

Ministry of Commerce and IndustryDepartment of Commerce

Directorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

| "":'

F.No.1.t t185t2011-12tECA-t I bt_26, 3 ) 37

Name of the Appellant : M/s. Cuir lmpex,A-77, Nariana Vihar,. New Delhi *110028.

Orderappealed against : Order-in-Original No.05/24140117514M

OS/ZALC{/CLA passed by Dy. DGFT, O/o

Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-i10002

April 03, 2013-€t4-

Passed by

Present on behalf ofihe appellant

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

: V. K, SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

: Naveen Malhotra, AdvocateSanjay Dhawan

Mis Cuir lmpex filed an appeal against the Adjudication Order No.0512414011751AM 05/ZALC-|iCLA dated 2910412011 passed by Dy. DGFT, O/oZonal Joint DGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which a fiscal penalty wasimposed on Mls Cuir lmpex for non-fulfillment of export obligation againstadvance authorization No. 0510140623 dated 1511012004.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Mis Cuir lmpex obtained anadvance authorization No. 0510140623 dated 1511012004 to import for a CIFvalue of Rs. 9,94,400/- subject to the condition that the firm shall export theresultant product as per conditions of authorization in question. Theappellant firm was under obligation to submit the prescribed documents to theRegional Authority in support of fulfillment of thejr export obligation withinspecified period. But the appellant ft11. faileO

!o submit the

lfport documents

\r- Lk'rcthatp

r-I

aHence, proceedings were initiated under Foreign Trade (Development &

Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Adiudicating Authority imposed fiscal penalty

on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated

2gl\4t2\11 , M/s Cuir lmpex filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been

submitted that appellants hid futfitled the export obligation and the total

exported amount was higher than the export obligation.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on

O2tO1t2O13. On that day Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate appeared and

produced one qriginal shipping bill, one photocopy of shipping bill and two

original bank realization certificates evidencing export of 6139 pcs. He stated

thal on! part import was made and pro-rata export to be made was of 6407pcs. He requested time to produce original receipt of payment of customs

duty saved plus interest on excess imports and to show one original shipping

bills. Time was granted and one more opportunity of personal hearing wasgranted on 20102t2013. On that day Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate and

Shri Sanjay Dhawan appeared and requested 2-weeks more time to pay

customs duty saved plus interest on excess imports and take recourse of para

4.30 A of HBP Volumel as one shipping bill was not available in original.

Time was allowed and another opportunity of person hearing was granted on

14t}3l2}1g. On that day Shri Naveen Malhotra, Advocate appeared and

produced original authorization, one original shipping bill, one photocopy ofshipping bill (self attested), two original bank realization certificates and

original TR-6 showing payment of customs duty saved plus interest on excess

imports, As one shipping bill is not available in original, he requested to allow

to take recourse of para 4.30 A of HBP Volume-|.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record,

submission of original authorization, one original shipping bill, two original

bank realization Lertificates, original TR-6 along with one photocopy of

shipping bill (self attested) evidencing payment of customs duty saved plus

interesfon excess imports. As all original prescribed documents along with

original TR-6 showing payment of customs duty saved plus interest have

been produced (€xcept one original shipping bill for which photo copy has

been produced and appellants have requested to allow to take recourse of

oar" 4.30 A of HBP Volume-l), case needs review by Regional Authority All

original documents along with original TR-6 have been returned to shri

Malhotra with directlons to submit same before Regional Authority with in one

month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15

read with section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,

1992, as amended,'iffig following order:

5.'r \oob*u',*

'.' .].t\:''

? a

ORDER

F.No.111185/2 011-12tEcA-t I saZ+ ,:41,3 L^

1. The Adjudication Order No.05l24l40l175tAM OSTZALC-|/CLA dated2510412011 passed by Dy. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi is set aside andthe case is remanded back to the Regional Authority for de novoconsideration and finalization.

2, Appellants. are directed to submit original documents along withoriginal TR-6 and documents as per para 4.30 A of HBP Volume-l(as one original shipping bill is not available and appellants haverequested to take recourse of para 4.30 A of HBP Volume-l) beforeRegional Authority within in 30 days of receipt or Order-in-Appeal.

3. At the time of review by Regional Authority, if any further amount ofcustoms duty saved plus interest is calculated by Regional Authoritywhich is in excess of what have already been paid, same will haveto be paid by appellants with in one month of issue of DemandNotice by Regional Authority.

The Jt. DGFT, CLA for information and necessary action- I/,'9'

(R.N. Me6na)' Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade

,)(-

April 03 , 2013

M/s. Cuir lmpex,A-77, Nariana Vihar,New Delhi - 110 028.

t\tl o

\-e b-G"\\alld/,c'{V.K. Srivastava)


d(L

'',. _I 'l."'

,+r'.i!, *-

'll

'.1,s-'r

#"

rf-

o Government of lndiaMinistry of Commerce & Industry

Department of Commerce(Directorate General of Foreign Trade)

Room No.1, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-l10107.

F.No.11t11gt2O12-1gtECA.l / .1, .^I )r 1rName of the Appellant: M/s Dhir International Pvt. Ltd.,

Plot No.299, Udyog Vihar PhaseJl,

. Gurgaon (Haryana).

April 03,2013.--5

Orderappealed against: Order-in-Original No.0 5 I I 36 I 021 I 43 I AM O2IEPCG-| l/C LA dated 24 I 1 1 I 20 1 1

passed byFTDO, OloZonal Jt. DGFT, CLA,New Delhi.

Order passed By:

ORDER.IN.APPEAL

V.K, SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

Upendra Trikha, Manager-Shipping,Appeared on behalf ofappellant firm:

Mis Dhir International Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against the Adjudication OrderNo. 05i36/02114314M 02|EPCG-IUCLA dated 2411112011 passed by FTDO, O/oZonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi, in terms of which fiscal penalty was imposed onthe appellant firm for non-fulfillment of export obligation against EPCG AuthorizationNo. 05301 3181 5 dated 1810512001.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Dhir lnternational obtained an EPCGAuthorization No.0530131815 dated 18i0512001 to import for a CIF value ofRs.10,57,6271- subject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultantproduct as per conditions of authorization question. On expiry of the exportobligation period, the appellant firm did not submit the prescribed documents to theRegional Authority in support of fulfillment of export obligation. Hence, proceedingsunder Foreign Trade (D&R) Act 1992 were initiated and the Adjudicating Authorityimposed fiscal penalty on the appellant firm.

3. Aggrieved by the Adjudication Order dated 241111201 1, Mis Dhir Internationalfiled an appeal. In the appeal it has been submitted that the firm had fulfilled 100 %export obligation within couple of months after import was maqp and well in time.

It\L!-lcff\te)tA,{t'e

/l

O 4. Appellants vide their letter dated O5tOZt2O13 had requested for early hearing.On their request, an opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 1310312013.

On that day Shri Upendra Trikha, Manager-Shipping appeared and stated thatexport obligation in this case is complete and prescribed documents have beensubmitted at Regional Authority on 1410212012 (after Adjudication Order waspassed). A letter from Regional Authority No. 05/36/021l0043/AM 02 dated2811212012 have been received furnishing report in this case. Regional Authority intheir letter daled 2811212012 received at H.Qrs. on 08i03/2013 have stated thatappellants have submitted documents at Regional Authority on 14/0212012 and asper these documents, appellants have fulfilled average and also specific exportobligation.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record and letter ofRegional Authority .dated 28112/2012 confirming submission of prescribeddocuments by appellants at Regional Authority showing completion of exportobligation. As appellants have now submitted documents at Regional Authority(though after the Adjudication Order was passed) and export obligation is completeas per Regional Authority's letter dated 2811212012, case needs review by RegionalAuthority.

6. l, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me vide Section 15 read withSection 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, asamended. pass the followino order:

F.No.1 1 t 1 1e t201 2-1 s tEc A.t [g +nl''/ ORDER

M/s Dhir International Pvt. Ltd.,Plot No.299, Udyog Vihar Phase-ll,Gurgaon (Haryana).

Copy to: Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi

April 03, 2013

--r-

1.The Order-in-Original No. 05/36/021/43/AM02/EPCG-||/CLA dated2411112011 passed by FTDO, Olo Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi is setaside and the case is remanded back to the Regional Authority for de-novoconsideration.

\l.l'.,s l<-t1"l.-r4*-(V.K. Srivastava)

Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade.1<-

-q;t3

t.

\a

I

Government of lndiaMinistry of Commerce and Industry

Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

F,No.1 1 I 1 07 1201Q -1{lEc A-l Y

Passed by


J',April 03, 2013'5

Name of the Appellant : M/s. S.M, Creative Electronics Ltd.),S-177, Panchsheel Park,

' New Delhi -110017.

Order appeaf ed against : Order-in-Original No.05127140/269/AM08 dated1110612012 passed by FTDO, OloZonal Jt. DGFT,CLA,, New Delhi-110002.

ORDER-IN-APPEAL


: Sanjay Trehan, Managing DirectorN,K. Chopra, Authorized Representative

M/s S.M. Creatiire Electronics Ltd.) filed an appeal against the AdjudicationOrder No. 05127l40l269lAM0B dated 1110612012 passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal JointDGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed on M/s. S.M,Creative Electronics Ltd.) for non-fulfillment of export obligation against Advanceauthorization No. 0510210432 dated 1111012007.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. S.M. Creative Electronics Ltd.,obtained an Advance authorization No. 0510210432 dated 1111012007 to import fora CIF value of Rs. 5,78,8741- subject to the condition that the firm shall export theresultant product as per conditions of authorization in question. The appellant firmwas under obligation to submit the prescribed documents to the Regional Authority insuppgl ot

fulritlmgyl of their_exqort f![oat1o1 within specifie$, neriod. But the

I

\jtr1n\Ffr@4/-

tI.

.oappellant firm failed to submit the export documents' Hence, proceedings were

iniiiated under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the

Adjudicating Authority imposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated 11t06t2012, MlsS.M. Creative Electronics Ltd. filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been submittedthat appellants have fulfilled export obligation 100 % in terms of quantity and 100 % in

terms of value.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 05/10/2012

but no one appeared. lnstead an e-mail dated 1411112012 was received from the

appellants for adjournment. As requested, one more opportunity of personal hearing

was granted on 05t1212012. on that day shri saniay lrehan, Managing Director and

Shri N.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative appeared and stated that though'export obligation was fulfilled well in time and foreign exchange realized, originalshipping bills and bank realization certificates were not traceable. However'photocopies were available. They requested more time to produce documents. As

requested, time was allowed. Next opportunity of personal hearing was granted on

1211012012 but case could not be heard as some documents were yei to be obtainedby the appellants. Hence, next opportunity of personal hearing was granted on

15t11t2012 which was rescheduled 'for 0511212012. On 0511212012, Shri N'K. Chopraappeared and requested more time to produce prescribed documents which wasgranted. As requested, another opportunity of personal hearing was granted on

2OtO3l2O13. On that day Shri Sanjay Trehan and Shri N.K. Chopra' AuthorizedRepresentative appeared and produced original shipping bills, original bank realizationcertificates, original authorization and ARE-1 prima-facie evidencing fulfillment ofexport obligation and realization of foreign exchange. Since authorization number isnot available on shipping bills, they produced Policy Relaxation Committee decisiondated 26t0612012 directing Regional Authority to correlate exports with ARE-1 . On

ARE-1 produced by appellants, authorization number in question is mentioned.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record, submission ofprescribed documents (all in original) along with original authorization and ARE-1 by

appellants. As prescribed original documents along with Policy Relaxation

committee decision dated 26t0612012 have been produced, case needs review by

Regional Authority. All original documents have been returned to shri Trehan with

dirJctions to produce sams before Regional Authority with in one month of receipt ofOrder-in-Appeal.

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 read with

section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended,pass the following order: [] n

\_a_ t<-1ft\.\@'Flr?I

t

,oORDER

F.No.11t107t201g-13EcA-l/ = t

*l"'"-'Ap1r9!lEs

1. The Adjudication OrderNo.05l27l40l269/AM08 dated '1 110612012 passedby FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set aside and the case is remanded back tothe Regional Authority for de novo consideration.

2. Appellants are directed to produce all original documents along with originalauthorization and ARE-'I at Regional Authority within one month of thereceipt of Order-in-Appeal. n

tt ,\--lk {c,"o,rr*r",(V.K, Srivastdva)

Addl, Director General of Foreign Trade

M/s S.M. CreativeElectronics Ltd.),S-177, Panchsheel Park,New Def hi *'110017.

Copy to: The Jt. DGFT, CLA for information and necessary action.

(1

"[ \

J"m

r/lM.

(R.N. Meena)Dy. Director General of Foreign Trade

/l

"1 r

t-

ta O Government of India



F. No. 1 1 /509/2 01 1 -1 2lEC A-l April 09,2013---:':-7

1b

Na m e or the Ap pe I ra nt' I'r';.ti,i,iil'i ioif,i,f;i,'"",PhaseJl,New Defhi - 110 020.

Order appealed against : Order-in-OriginalNo.05/36/021 /5221 AM02|EPCGll/CLA dated3011212011 passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal Jt.DGFT, CLA., New Delhi-110002

Passed by


ORDER-IN-APPEAL

: V, K, SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

: Dinesh Prasad, Authorized RepresentativeAnil Pillai, Authorized Representative

M/s Exotique Exports filed an appeal against the Adjudication OrderNo. 05i36/021l522lAM02lEPCG-lliCLA dated 301121201 1 passed by FTDO,Olo Zonal Joint DGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which a fiscal penalty wasimposed on M/s Exotique Exports for non-fulfillment of export obligationagainst EPCG authorization No. 0530132286 dated 01itf /2001.,

Leh-6,+r-qfi*-tP

o2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Exotique Exports obtained anEPCG authorization No. 0530132286 dated 01/'1 1t2001 to import lor a CIFvalue of Rs. 1,21,497.04/- subject to the condition that the firm shall exportthe resultant product as per conditions of authorization in question. Theappellant firm was under obligation to submit the prescribed documents to theRegional Authority in support of fulfillment of their export obligation withinspecified period. But the appellant firm failed to submit the export documents.Hence, proceedings were initiated under Foreign Trade (Development &Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Adjudicating Authority imposed fiscal penaltyon appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated3011212011, M/s Exgtique Exports filed an appeal. In the appeal it has beensubmitted that appellants had fulfilled the export obligation within the initialvalidity period of the said authorization.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on1411212012. On that day Shri Dinesh Prasad and Shri Anit pillai, AuthorizedRepresentatives appeared but could not produce any evidence and statedthat documents had been submitted at Regional Authority. They requestedtime to produce confirmation of Regional Authority. Time was allowed andone more opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 3010112013. Onthat day Shri Dinesh Prasad and Shri Ani Pillai, Authorized Representativesappeared and stated that they had re-submitted documents at RegionalAuthority on 0310112Q13. He requested further time to produce confirmationfrom Regional Authority. As requested, one more opportunity of personalhearing was granted on 15/03/2013. On that day Shri Dinesh prasad andShri Anil Pillai, Authorized Representatives appeared and reiterated thatexport obligation is complete and prescribed documents have been submittedat Regional Authority on 0810112013. Regional Authority vide their letter No.05136121 10522/AM02/EPCG-|/CLA dated 27 10212013 has also confirmed thatthe firm vide their letter dated 0310112013 have furnished revised statementduly attested by Chartered Accountant along with other documents towardfulfillment of export obligation. And as per the documents submitted on0310112013, appellants have fulfilled both average and specific exportobligation.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record andRegional Authority's report dated 0310112013 confirming that the firm videletter dated 0310112013 has furnished the revised statement of averageexports duly attested by Chartered Accountant along with other documentstowards fulfillment of export obligation and as per documents, firm hasfulfilled both specific and average export obligation. As prescribeddocuments have already been submitted at Regional Authority showingfulfillment of export obligation (as per Regional Authority's letter dated2710212013), case needs review by Regional Authority. d 0 ^N-o-\c-frd\FXidAF-

I

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 1 5read with Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:

ORDER

dated 301i212011 passed by FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set asideand the case is remanded back to the Regional Authority for denovo consideration and finalization.

M/s. Exotique Exports,245, Okhla lndustrial Area,PhaseJl,New Defhi - 110 020.

\'-r.***^(V,K. Srivastava)

Addl. Director General of Foreign Tradenul(-

I,

Copy to : The Jt. DGFT, CLA for information and necessary action..,l/,tY-/r/

(R.N.'Meena)Dy, Director General of Foreign Trade

a)l c/

js\ J- 1El{v re

= o1

Govemment of lndiaMinisty of Commerce and Industy

Departnent of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011

F.No.1'tl393/20 1'l -12lEC A-l

Passed by

Present on behalf ofthe bppellani

ORDER-IN.APPEAL


: Sanjay Trehan, Managing DirecbrN.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative

lu,, ' Apnl11,2013

lv

Name of the A,ppellant : M/s BSMC Power Systems Pvt Ltd.(now meqed with M/s. S.M. CreativeElectronics Ltd.),. 10, Elec?onic City, Sector-l8,Gurgaon-1 2201 5 (Haryana).

Order appealed against : Order-in-Original No.0S/88/40/0053/AM05/DESIiCLAdated 09/03/2010 passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal Jt.DGFT, CLA, New Delhll10002.

M/s BSMC Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. (now merged with S.M. CreativeElectronics Ltd.) filed an appeal against the Adjudication order No. 05i25/40/0053iAM05/DES-/CLA dated 09/03/2010 passed by FTDO, OloZonat Joint DGFT, CLA, NewDelhi in terms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed on M/s. BSMC Power SystemsPvt. Ltd. (now merged with M/s S.M. Creative Electronics Ltd.) for non-fulfillment ofexport obligation against Advance authorization No. 0510128691 dated 1410612004.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. BSMC Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. (nowmerged with Mis S.M. Creative Electronics Ltd.), obtained an Advance authorizationNo. 0510128691 dated 1410612004 to import for a CIF value of Rs. 87,12,000fsubject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultant product as per

. conditions of authorization in question. The appellant firm was under obligation tosubmit the prescribed documents to the Regional Authority in suryort of fulfillment of

Lztcr[o.oi\s-{-

o

their export obligation within specified period. But the appellant firm failed to submitthe export documents. Hence, proceedings were initiated under Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Adjudicating Authority imposed fiscalpenalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3 Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated 09/03/2010, M.SBSMC Power Systems Pvt. Ltd. (now merged with M/s S.M. Creative Electronics Ltd.)filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been submitted that the appellants have fulfilledexport obligation 100 Yo in terms of quantity and 126.86 % of value. During October,2004, the firm M/s BSMC Power Systems (Pvt.) Ltd. merged with M/s. S.M. CreativeLtd. and the appelldnts had not received any Show Cause Notice due to variouschanges in the names and addresses of their firm during that period. Moreover, ShriSanjay Trehan, Managing Director had been suffering from heart ailment and hadeven suffered a heart attack and due to ill health, he could not concentrate on theaspect of redemption.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 0610912012.On that day Shri Sanjay Trehan, Managing Director and Shri N.K. Chopra, Advocateappeared and requested that there were 13 cases of appeals pending with them andrequested hearing for all appeals. One more opportunity of personal hearing wasgranted on 0511012012. On that day Shri Sanjay Trehan, Managing Director andShri N.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative appeared and stated that though,export obligation was fulfilled well in time and foreign exchange realized, originalshipping bills and bank realization certificates were not traceable. However,photocopies were available. He requested more time. As requested, time wasallowed and next opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 12/1012012. Butcase could not be heard as some documents were yet to be obtained by theappellants. Hence, next opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 1511112012which was rescheduled for 0511212012. On 05112120'12, Shri N.K. Chopra appearedand requested some more time to produce prescribed documents which was granted.As requested, another opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 2010312013.On that day Shri N.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative appeared and producedoriginal shipping bills, original bank realization certificates and original authorizationevidencing fulfillment ef export obligation and realization of foreign exchange.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record, submission oforiginal authorization, original shipping bills and original bank realization certificatesby the appellants. As original prescribed documents evidencing fulfillment of exportobligation and realization of foreign exchange are produced, case needs review byRegional Authority. All original documents have been returned to Shri Trehan withdirections to produce same before Regional Authority with in one month of receipt ofOrder-in-Aooea l.

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vesied in me under Section 15 read withSection 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,11992, as amended,

tepass the following order: /\urc-(r*talrax'-

t

o. ORDERI

F,No.1 1/393/20 11 -12lEC A-l I 7t a I

1.

Apnl 11,2013

2.

The Adjudication Order No.05/25l40/0053iAM05/DES-yCLA dated0910312010 passed by' FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set aside and the caseis remanded back to the Regional Authority for de novo consideration.Appellants are directed to produce all original documents at RegionalAuthority evidencing fulfillment of expod obligation and realization ofForeign Exchange within one month of the receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

M/s BSMC PowerSysbms Pvt. Ld.(now merged with M/s. S.M. Creative Elecbonics Ltd.),10, Electronic City, Sector-18,Gurgaon-1 2201 5 (Haryana).


h-***=Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade

Ett-

!l,M'"

(R.N. Meena)Dy, Director General of Foreign Trade

Olrl!I

{,l

o

t


Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhawan, New Delhi-l10011

I

F.No.1 1/106/2010-1 1/ECA-t J2tyy

Name of the Appellant : M/s, S.M. Creative Electronics Ltd.,S-177, Panchsheel Park,NewDelhi -110017.

April 12,20'13

Order appea led aga inst : Order-i n-Orig inal No.05 127 | 40/268/AM08 dated1419612012 passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT,CLA, New Delhi-110002.

ORDER.IN-APPEAL

Passed by : V, K. SrivastavaAddl, Director General of Foreign Trade

Present on behalf of : Sanjay Trehan, Managing Directorthe appellant N.K. Ghopra, Authorized Representative

M/s S.M. Creative Electronics Ltd.) filed an appeal against the AdjudicationOrder No. 0512714012681AM08 dated 1410612012 passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal JointDGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed on M/s. S.M.Creative Electronics Ltd.) for non-fulfillment of export obligation against Advanceauthorization No. 0510210434 dated 1111012007.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. S.M. Creative Electronics t-t0.,obtained an Advance authorization No. 05102'10434 dated 1411012007 to import fora ClFvalueof Rs. 15,43,664/- subjecttotheconditionthatthefirmshall exportthe resultant product as per conditions of authorization in question. The appellant firmwas. ulder obljgglion tq suhmjt the prescribed documents to the Reqional Authority in

ll ,

No \c t *-,,1 -,r*fi.a.trt

o

support of fulfillment of their export obligation within specified period. But theappellant firm failed to submit the export documents. Hence, proceedings wereinitiated under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and theAdjudicating Authority imposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3, Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated 14t06t20j2, Mts'S.M. Creative Electronics Ltd. filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been submittedthat appellants have fulfilled export obligation 100 % in terms of quantity and 100 % interms of value.

4. The appellantb were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 06/09/2012,On that day Shri Sanjay Trehan, Managing Director and Shri N.K. Chopra, Advocateappeared and requested ihat as there were 13 appeals filed, hearing may be done forall appeals. One more opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellantson 05/10i2012. On that day Shri Sanjay Trehan, Managing Director and Shri N.K.Chopra, Authorized Representative appeared and stated that though, exportobligation was fulfilled well in time and foreign exchange realized, original shippingbills and bank realization certificates were not traceable. However, phoiocopies wereavailable. He requested more time. As requested, time was allowed and nextopportunity of personal hearing was granted on 1211012012. But case could not beheard as some documents were yet to be obtained by the appellants. Hence, nexropportunity of personal hearing was granted on 15/1112012 which was rescheduledfor 0511212012. On 0511212012, Shri N.K. Chopra appeared and requested somemore time to produce prescribed documents. As requested, another opportunity ofpersonal hearing was granted on 2010312013. On that day Shri N.K. Chopra,Authorized Representative and Shri Sanjay Trehan, Managing Director appeared andproduced original shipping bills, original bank realization certificates, originalauthorization and ARE-1 prima-facie evidencing fulfillment of export obligation andrealization of foreign exchange. As authorization number is not available on shippingbills, they produced a copy of Policy Relaxation Committee decision dated2610612012 condoning the same and directing Regional Authority to correlate exponsmade under the authorization with ARE-1 to ensure the exports made are actuallvagainst the authorization in question.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record, submission ofprescribed documents (all in original) along with original authorization and ARE-1 byappellants. As original prescribed documents along with decision of policyRelaxation Committee dated 26/06/2012 have been produced, case needs review byRegional Authority. All original documents have been returned to Shri Trehan withdirections to produce same before Regional Authority with in one month of receipt ofOrder-in-Appeal.

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15 read withSection 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Acfl 1 992, as amended,pass the following order: Y I

lr-l\c_iln .cyitz.rr_

7

ot.

\\)\

ORDER

F.No.1 1/1 o6/201g-grEcA-t ) 31gr

M/s S.M. CreativeElectronics Ltd.),S-177, Panchsheel Park,NewDelhi -110017.

Copy to: The Jt.

April 12, 2013

passedback to

originalof the

tr-1. The Adjudication Order, No.05127 l4Ql268lAM08 dated 1 410612012

by FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set aside and the case is remandedthe Regional Authority for de novo consideration.Appellants are directed to produce all original documents along withauthorization and ARE-1 at Regional Authority within one monthreceipt of Order-in-Appeal.

W

\-- t.c^*oq^r--(V.K. Srivastava)

Addl. Director General of Foreigrr Tradeci c

I

DGFT, CLA for information and necessary action.

//(R.N. Meena)

Dy, Director General of Foreign Trade

L

oGovernment of lndia

Ministry of Commerce & IndustryDepa{ment of Commerce

(Directorate General of Foreign Trade)Room No.1, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-{10107.

.IF.Nos. 1 1/591, 431,4s4r2011-1ZECA.r

I er+"c- April 1O 2013

)}-

NameoftheApperrants: toT1"r9?i;"Ti"ll1li'il,xl",t'fl,:,,r,

. Delhi -110006.2.Shri Shashi Kant Director3.Shri Kamal Gupta, Director

Orders appealed : Order-in-Originalagainst No.05/25l40/00243/,AM07/DES-iliCLA

dated2ll'10 /2011 passed by Jt. DGFT, OloZonalJt. DGFT, CLA, Delhi.

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

Order passed by: Shri VK SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

Appeared on behalf of: Rachit Jain, Advocatethe appellants S.C. Jain, Advocate

Disha JainSukesh Gupta, Commercial Manager

Mis Gemscab lndustries Ltd., New Delhi, Shri Shashi Kant, Director and ShriKamal Gupta, Director filed separate appeals against the Adjudication Order No.05125140100243/AM07/DES-|I/CLA dated 2111012011 passed by Jt. DGFT, CLA, Dethi, interms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed on the appellant firm and its Directors fornon-fulfillment of export obligation against Advance Authorization No. 05'1 0190056 datedo1tost2oo6. il l]

[--s k,t \.,aftdatq

a

2. The brief facts of the cases are that M/s Gemscab Industries Ltd. obtainedAdvance Authorization No 0510190056 dated 0110912006 to import for CIF value of Rs.1 ,06,88,924.93/- (US $ 227423.93) subject to the condition that the firm shall export theresultant product as per conditiops of authorization in question. On expiry of theexport obligation period, the appellant firm did nol submit the prescribed documents to theRegional Authority in support of fulfillment of expod obligation. Hence, proceedings underForeign Trade (D&R) Act 1992 were initiated and the Adjudicating Authority imposedfiscal penalty on the appellant firm.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated 21t10t2011, MlsGemscab Industries Ltd., $ew Delhi, Shri Kamal Gupta, Director and Shri Shashi KantDirector filed separate appeals. In the appeals it has been submitted that the firm hasfulfilled 100 % export obligation but their firm caught fire due to which appellants could notlocate / trace the prescribed documents.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 17/1212012. Onthat day Shri Rachit Jain, Advocate appeared and stated that original authorization wasinvalidated for deemed export and they have completed supplies and received payment.They further submitted that after Adjudication Order was passed, all prescribeddocuments were submitted at Regional Authority on 2511112011. They also requested forwaiver of pre-deposit as documents had been submitted at Regional Authority (as pertheir statement). As requested by appellants, one more opportunity of personal hearingon admission was granted on 0810212012. On that day Shri S.C. Jain, Advocate, Ms.Disha Jain, Advocate and Mr. Sukesh Gupta, Commercial Manager appeared andreiterated that prescribed documents had been submitted at Regional Authority on2511112011 and requested more time to produce confirmation from Regional Authority.Last opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 2110312013. On that day ShriRachit Jain, Advocate appeared and reiterated that they have fulfilled nearly 85 % ofexport obligation and also deposited duty plus interest of Rs. 3,73,6071- on shortfall inexport obligation. Regional Authority vide their letter No. O5l81l40l183lAM 01/DES-lI/CLA dated 3010112013 have also confirmed that appellants have submitted originalauthorization, DEEC book, shipping bills and bank realization certificates on 3010312012.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record, written submissionmade by the appellants and letter of Regional Authority dated 30/01/2013 stating thatoriginal authorization, DEEC book, shipping bills and bank realization certificates havebeen submitted by appellants at Regional Authority on 3Q1Q312012. As export documentsrelating to exports made and evidence of payment of duty and interest relating to shortfallin exports have been submitted, case needs review by Regional Anuthority.

l}

\-!-tc[d*--(->-<.

o

6. l, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me vide section 15 read with section13 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass thefollowing order:

I -.^^ ^zic,r 4o1 ,$a>-F.Nos.111591, 431,494t2011-12tECA.t iU.L.t^"- 3l??,'$tF--, 'ti- Aprit16,2013

,*

ORDER

1. The Adjudication order No.}st2st4)tlo24ztAMo7lDEs-tycLA dated 2it10120i1passed by Jt. DGFT, CLA, Delhi is set aside and case is remanded back to theRegional Authority for de-novo consideration.

2. At the time of de-novo consideration, if any further duty and interest is foundpayable, same will have to be paid by appellants with in 30 days of receipt ofDemand-Notice by Regional Authority.

[--e-ic-/'"*)aor^(V.K. Srivastava)

--k$lls Gemscab lndustries Ltd..44, 2"d Floor, Shardhanand Marg,Delhi -1 10006.

'{.Snri Shashi Kant Director'3.Shri Kamal Gupta, Director

v CoPy to: Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi.


4,.:

,/,,vI/(R.N. Meena)


1c-

ll

oGovernment of lndia

Ministry of Gommerce and lndustryDepartment of Commerce

Directorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhawan, New Delhi-11001 1

F.No. 1 1 /609/2 01 1 -1 2tEC A-l


Passed by


: M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd.,Plot No. 1, Sector-6 lMT,Manesar, Gurgaon-132 050.

April 16,2013

Order appealed against : Order-in-OriginalNo.05 I 241 40 I 0000021 1 I AM06 IZALC-t/CLAdaled2611212011 passed by Dy. DGFT OtoZonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-110002

: V, K. SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

: Rittam Mittal, Authorized RepresentativeDeepak Singh, Deputy ManagerRajan Sharma, Jt. Managing Director

Mis Avlighi Automotives Ltd. filed an appeal against the AdjudicationOrder No. 05124140100211/AM06/ZALC-|ICLA dated 26t12t2011 passed byDy. DGFT, O/o Zonal Joint DGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which a fiscalpenalty was imposed on M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd. for non-fulfillment ofexport obligation against advance authorization No. 0S10161663 dated07 t07 il2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd.obtained an advance authorization No, 05'10161663 dated 071071200F toimport for a CIF value of Rs. 7Q,00,000/- subject to the condition that the firmshall export the resultant proiluct ias per conditiotrts of authorization in

:i-t,\A \:, N.9E-Ad\qfF.&P; .l

-;.

.. .;. j't" iil

"l- "...,!,

o

question. The appellant firm was under obligation to submit the prescribeddocuments to the Regional Authority in support of fulfillment of their exportobligation within specified period. But the appellant firm failed to submit theexport documents. Hence,. proceedings were initiated under Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Adjudicating Authorityimposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated2611212011, M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd. filed an appeal. In the appeal ithas been submitted that appellants had fulfilled the export obligation andsubmifted all relevant documents to the Regional Authority for redemption.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on0411212012 but no one appeared. One more opportunity of personal hearingwas granted on 1110112012 but this time again, no one appeared on behalf ofthe appellants. Thus, last opportunity of personal hearing was granted on0410312013. On that day Shri Deepak Kumar, Deputy Manager, and ShriRajan Sharma, Jt. Managing Director appeared and stated that exportobligation was complete and all relevant documents were submitted atRegional Authority. He requested for one last change and time of 15 days toget confirmation from Regional Authority, Time was allowed and one moreopportunity of personal hearing was granted on 2510312013. On that day ShriRittam Mittal, Authorized Representative appeared. In the meantime, Reportfrom Regional Authority has also been received. Regional Authority videtheir letter No. 05124140100211/AM06ZALC-1/CLA dated 14103/2013 haveinformed that appellants have submitted one original shipping bill, 4 originalFIRCs along with prescribed documents as per para 4.30 A of HBP Volume-l( in respect of documents whlch are not available in original ).

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record andRegional Authority's report dated 1410312013 confirming that the firm hassubmitted one original shipping bill and 4 original FIRCs along withprescribed documents as per para 4.30 A of HBP Volume-|. As some originaldocuments as well as remain ing documents as per para 4.30 A of HBPVolume-l ( w.r.t. documents which are not available in original ), have beensubmitted at Regional Authority, case needs review by Regional Authority.

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15read with Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:

\-..,fr*=---

oI

I

ORDER

F.No.1 1/60e/2 01 1 -1zrECA-t / a)-nro

Mis Avlight Automotives Ltd..Plot No. 1, Sector-6 lMT,Manesar, Gurgaon-1 32 050.

1. The Adjudication order No.0sr24r40r00211rAMo6rzALc-1rcL|dated 261.1212011 passed by Dy. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi is setasroe and the case is remanded back to the Regional Authority forde novo consideration.

['\0}-Q lc-/tx\aDrr,rt(V.K. Srivastava)


April 16 , 2013tr'

dlL



| ) ^ u"t,..--F.No.l1/610/2011-12tEcA-l I g*t '/ 5r-\' April 16, 2013

Name of the Appellant : M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd.,Plot No. 't, Sector-6 lMT,

. Manesar, Gurgaon-132 050.

Order appealed against : Order-in-OriginalNo.05/24140/0003 1/AM06/ZALCJ/CLA dated2611212011 passed by Dy. DGFT O/o Zonal Jt.DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-110002

ORDERJN.APPEAL

Passed by


: V, K. SrivastavaAddl, Director General of Foreign Trade

: Rittam Miftal, Authorized RepresentativeDeepak Singh, Authorized Representative

Mis Avlight Automotives Ltd. filed an appeal against the Adjudicationorder No. 05l24t4otooo31tAMO6tzALC-l/CLA dated 26t12t2011 passed byDy. DGFT, Olo Zonal Joint DGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which a fiscalpenalty was imposed on M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd. for non-fulfillment ofexport obligation against advance authorization No. 0510157077 dated06105t2005.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd.obtained an advance authorization No. 0510157077 dated 06/05/2005 toimport for a CIF value of Rs. 38,00,000f subjei;! to the condition that the firmshall export the resultant product as per cci*riditions of authorization inquestion. The appellant firm was under to submit the prescribeddocuments to the Regional Authority in support llment of their export

'm fBiled to submit the. n

Lr\td.n,,-/terro.''

obligation within rspecified periOd: -But the appellan

O ef,port documents. Hence, proceedings were initiated under Foreign Trade(ljevelopment & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Adjudicating Authorityimposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated2611212A11, M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd. filed an appeal. In the appeal it hasbeen submitted that appellants had fulfilled the export obligation andsubmitted all relevant documents to the Regional Authority for redemption.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on19/0912012 but no one appeared. One more opportunity of personal hearingwas granted on 08i 1 112012 but this time again, no one appeared on behalf ofthe appellants. Thus, another opportunity of personal hearing was granted on1711212012. On that day Shri Deepak Kumar, Deputy Manager,Administration appeared and stated that original documents had beensubmitted at Regional Authority but Regional Authority in their commentshad categorically denied this. As such appellants were directed to depositcustoms duty saved plus interest on imports made by ZTljZl2OjZ. In themean time, an e-mail had been received from the appellants requesting forone more opportunity of personal. Time was allowed and as requested, onemore opportunity of personal hearing on 1310312013. On that day Shri RittamMittal, Authorized Representative and Shri Deepak Singh, AuthorizedRepresentative appeared and stated that Regional Authority had already sentreport that documents were submitted at Regional Authority on 2510212013.They requested 2-week's more time to produce letter of Regional Authority.Time was allowed and another opportunity of personal hearing was grantedon 2510312013. On that day Shri Rittam Mttal, Authorized Representativeappeared. In the meantime, Repori from Regional Authority has also beenreceived. Regional Authority vide their letter No. 0Sl24l40lOO31IAMO6/ZALC-IiCLA dated 0110312013 informed that appellants have submitted ANF-4F,one original shipping bill, 4 photocopies of shipping bills, 4 original FlRCs,one photocopy of FIRC along with prescribed documents as per para 4.30 Aof HBP Volume-|.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record andRegional Authority's report dated 0110312013 confirming that the firm hassubmitted ANF-4F, one original shipping bill, 4 photocopies of shipping bills,4 original FIRCs; one photocopy of FIRC along with prescribed documents asper para 4.30 A of HBP Volume-|. As original documents as well asdocuments as per para 4.30 A of HBP Volume-l (w.r.t. documents which arenot available in original), have been submitted at Regional Authority, caseneeds review by Regional Authority.

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15read with Section '13 of the Foreion Trade (Development^& Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:

l*,.1*.'*---=-

o

F.No.1 1 161 0 1201 1 -1 2lEC A-l ylJq\"bAv' April 16, 2013,P1. The Adjudication Order No.05/24/4OtOOO3l1AMO61ZALC-1ICLA

dated 26112120'1 1 passed by Dy. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi is setaside and the case is remanded back to the Regional Authority forde novo consideration and finalization I

\l ^. t

tW)tS"gdr*Addl, Director General of Foreign Trade

M/s Avlight Automotives Ltd.,Plot No. 1, Sector-6 lMT,Manesar, Gurgaon-132 050,

dllI

, /Copy to : The Jt. DGFT, CLA for information and necessary action. ,Vtlltt'l -.-'

? larfrrlr'-/'...i1,:. rri'l .,,.i, ( A.nlK"r^l

.: i' *! Oy:birector General of Foreign Tradei\i. ',i \ '{-,-jJA' (.' -t' \97f"

'"'l

I

' Government of lndia



F.No.1 1 t 13e t2O1 2-13rEC A-t IzlE U. 32:7 S .

Passed by


ORDER-IN-APPEAL


: K.L, Mullick, Authorized Representative

. April 16,2013Jntu,1. r+sS,^t't" 1'Y9 |u(ta ts

Name of the Appellant : M/s Sai Phytoceuticals (P) Ltd.,5-553, Greater Kailash Part-ll,New Delhi-110048.

Order appea led aga inst : Order-in-Original No.05/27 I 40 1002921 AM07dated'1310612012 passed by FTDO, OIo ZonalJt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-110002

Mls Sai Phytoceuticals (P) Ltd. filed an appeal against theAdjudication Order No. 051271401002921AM07 dated 1310612012 passed byFTDO, O/o Zonal Joint DGFT. CLA. New Delhi in terms of which a fiscalpenalty was imposed on M/s Sai Phytoceuticals (P) Ltd. for non-fulfillment ofexport obligation against advance authorization No. 0510195736 dated06t1212006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Sai Phytoceuticals (P) Ltd.obtained an advance authorization No. 0510,|95736 dated 0611212006 toimport for a CIF value of Rs. 38,08,200/- subject to the condjtion that the firmshall export the resultant product as per conditions of authorization inquestion. The appellant firm was under obligation to submit the prescribeddocuments to the Regional Authority in support of fulfillment of their exportobligation within specified period. But the appellant firm failed to submit theexport documents. Hence, proceedings were initiated under Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Adjudicating Authorityimposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and its

1.r'.[**

r;lri'a 3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated

1310612012, Mis Sai Phytoceuticals (P) Ltd. filed in appeal. In the appeal ithas been submitted that the firm could not fulfill export obligation due todrastic fall in prices in the International market of export products

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personlal hearing on2110312013. On that day Shri K.L. Mullick, Authorized Representativeappeared and stated that as. buyers cancelled the order, exports could notbe made. He further stated that full customs duty saved along with interesthave been deposited. He produced original receipt of payment of Rs.14,82,9961- (customs duty saved of Rs. 7,46,087/- + interest of Rs. 7,36,909f). Original receipt have been returned to Shri Mullick with directions tosubmit same before Reglonal Authority with in one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record andsubmission of original receipt evidencing payment of customs duty saved plusinterest, As the customs duty saved along with interest have been paid, caseneeds review by Regional Authority.

6. I therefore; in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 15read with Section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,1992, as amended, pass the following order:

ORDER

F.No.1'll1 39/201 2-'t 3/ECA-l April 16, 2013

The Ad judication Orde r No. 05/27140/00 292 | AMOT dated 1 3/06/20 1 2passed by FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set aside and the case isremanded back to the Regional Authority for de novo considerationand finalization.At the time of finalization, if any excess duty saved and interest iscalculated by Regional Authority which is over and above theamount already paid by appellants, the same will have to be paid byappellants with in one month of receipt of Dnemand Notice ofRegionalAuthority. \\ ,\t ,1

\..--0"\c-/16u-a{}e^re

1.

z.

(V.K. Srivastava)Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade

M/s Sai Phytoceuticals (P) Ltd., d I (5-553, Greater Kailash Part-ll, L

New Delhi-110048.

necessary action.

/,/

Copy to : The Jt. DGFT, CLA for information and

'!{i1 ya""!

ire d{o l:'rI"" of Fore,1"

(R.N, Meena)ign Trade

e

a.

o Government of IndiaMinis_try of Commerce and Industry

Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Dethi-ii0102.

F. No.1 1 t 477 t2o1 o -1 1 tEc ^.t f

3q9 q 3 2ql,

Name of the Appellan!:


Passed by

Present on behalf ofthe appellants

. Aprit 22,2012.

D#"V As/4,2:x1e(.wtz

M/s Treasure Tech Electronics Limited,E-4112-3, Okhla lndustrial Area, phase-il,New Delhi-110020.

05187 14010021 I AMOt/DES-IV/CLA dated2711212010 passed by FTDO, OtoZonalJt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi

ORDER-IN.APPEAL

V, K. SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

Harish Mahajan, Director

M/s Treasure Tech Erectronics Limited fired an appear against the order-in-9jg,l"r^|o- 0ste7 t AotoQzi I AM'r IDES-rv/cLA daied'zt nuz6t o p"r."J uy tn"FTDO, O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi, in terms of which

" ti.""i-p"n"fty *.,imposed o.n the.apperrant firm for non{urfiilmeni oiexport obrigation against AdvanceAuthorization No.0510024177 dated }O/O8IZOOO.

2. . The brief facts of the case are that M/s Treasure Tech Electronics Limitedobtained an Advance Licence No.0510024177 dated 3ot}Brzooo for a crF value ofRs28,64,743t- (us$65107) subjecttotheconJitionthatthefirmshalr ""porttn"resultant product as per conditions of authorization in question. The appeilantfirm was.under obrigation..to submit the presciibed documents to tne -iJgionat

i:jn:lln::_.^,ltt?rl "_1 fulfillment of their export obrisation within specified p"eriod

But the appettant firm faited to submit the export Ogg$gi" Xn;.;, ;;;;ridi.s,

F " : 'X&LsLrl"-afla,rq

o

were initiated under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and theAdjudicating Authority imposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and iis Director.

3. Aggrieved by ihe above mentioned Order dated 2711212010, M/s TreasureTech Electronics Limited filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been submitted thatthe authorization in question was never received by the appellants and therefore noimports were made against this authorization.

4. Appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 0411012012 butno one appeared. Ohe more opportunity of personal hearing on admission wasgranted on 0311212Q12. On that day Shri Harish Mahajan, Director appeared andstated that the authorization in question was never received by them and have notbeen utilized for imports. He requested time to produce Non-Utilization certificatefrom customs. Time was allowed and another opportunity of personal hearing wasgranted on 0410112013. On that day Shri Harish Mahajan, Director appeared andstated that in spite of visiting customs office and also applying under RTl, he had yetnot received reply from customs. Regional Authority had also written in December2012 but reply was yet to be received. Shri Mahajan reiterated that he had notimported against the said authorization and requested 4-5 weeks more time toproduce evidence of non-utilizaiion of authorization. Time was allowed and onemore opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 2810212013 which was re-scheduled lor 2510312013. On that day Shri Harish Mahajan, Director appearedand produced copies of letters from (i) Inland Container Department, patparganj,;(ii) New Customs House, New Delhi; and (iii) Commissioner of Customs, Tuglaqabadstating that authorization in question is not registered with them. Regional Authority,Delhi vide their letter No. 05187140121/AM01/DES-|V)/CLA dated 05/03/2013 hasalso confirmed that as per information received by them from customs, authorizationin question was neither registered nor utilized for imports. All letters of customshave been returned to Shri Mahajan with directions to produce same beforeRegional Authority with in one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case and letters from Iniand ContainerDepartment, Patparganj, New Customs House, New Delhi and Commissioner ofCustoms, Tuglaqabad stating that the said authorization is not registered with themand also Regional Authority's letter dated 05/03/2013 confirming that as perinformation received by them also from customs, the authorization in question wasneither registered nor utilized for imports. lf no imports have been made against theauthorization in question, cause of action does not arise. Case, therefore, needsreview by Regional Authority.

6. l, therefore, in exercise of the power vested in me under Section 15 read withSection 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation 1992. as amendedpass ![e fqllowing o-!lder;

l. *harr'

ORDER

F. No.11 1477 12010-1 lECA.l Apri|22,2013.

1. The Order-in-Original No, 05187140100211AM01/DES-IV/CLA dated2711212010.passed by the FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set aside and thecase is remanded back to the Regional Auth-ority for de-novoconsideration. l\ll rtt I

\_!tr lv$w.{M4n(V.K. Srivastava)


M/s Treasure Tech Electronics Limited,E-4112-3, Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseJl.New Delhi-110020.

Copy to : Jt. DGFT, CLA,

Dy, Director General of Foreign Trade

aq

Vi"I

o

1

Government of lndiaMinistry of Commerce and lndustry


i. r,ro. r r raelzo r o-,n rcc a-tf jj11-3' 3, -

Name of the Appelldnt


Passed by

Present on behalf of-the appellant

April 23, 2013

D"t(-? A;sl"*,,r, : 3a f tt 1zo rz

M/s. Givo Ltd.,42no Mile Stone, Delhi Jaipur Highway,Kherki Daula,Gurgaon (Haryana) - 122 001.

Order-in-Original. No.05/88/40/30()iAM99/ZALC-YCLAdated 27104/2010 passed by Dy. DGFT, O/o Zonal Jt,DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-l10002.

ORDER-IN.APPEAL

V. K. SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

R.K. Sharma, CFO & CompanY SecretaryAmit Malik, Authorized Representative

M/s Givo Ltd., filed an appeal against the Adjudication Order No.05/BB/40/300/AM99iZALC-UCLA dated 2710412010 passed by Dy. DGFT, Olo ZonalJoint DGFT, CLA, New Delhi in terms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed on MisGivo Ltd. for non-fulfillment of export obligation against Advance Authorization No.

P1L10101302 dated 1 110111999.

ined an Advance

k-k'u*ezua

a

Authorization No. PiU0101302 dated 11i01/1999 to import for a CIF value of Rs.

48,83,2521- subject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultant product asper conditions of authorization in question. The appellant firm was under obligationto submit the prescribed documents to the Regional Authority in support of fulfillmeniof their export obligation within specified period. But the appellant firm failed tosubmit the export documents. Hence, proceedings were initiated under Foreign Trade(Development & Regulation) Act,'1992 and the Adjudicating Authority imposed fiscalpenalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication Order dated 2710412010' MlsGivo Ltd. filed an appeal. In the appeal it has been submitted that the exportobligation was fulfilled by April, 1999.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 0310112013

but no one appeared. One more opportunity of personal hearing was granted on

27lOZt2O13 which was rescheduled on 13/0312013. On that day Shri Amit Malik'

Authorized Representative and Shri R.K. Sharma, CFO & Company Secretaryappeared and produced original Challan evidencing payment of excise duty plus

interest on excess supplies received. They requested 2-3 weeks mole time to get

other documents. As requested, time was allowed and next personal hearing wasgranted on 01104t2013. On that day Shri R.K. Sharma, CFO and Shri Amit Malik,

Authorized Representative appeared and produced copy of Regional Authority'sletter No. 05/88/040/300/AM99/CLA-ZALC-1 dated 0311012012 addressed toappellants confirming that appellants on 06/08/2012 have submitted original

authorization, 5 original shipping bills, their bank realization certificates, both DEEC

books, siatement of exporis-imports, cenvat declaration, Appendix-23 duly certified

by Chartered Accountant and also original TR-6 showing the payment of excise dutyplus interest on excess raw material taken duty free.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record and copy ofRegional Authority's letter No. 05i88/040/300iAM99/CLA-ZALC-1 dated 0311012012

confirming that appellants have submitted original authorization, 5 original shipping

bills, their bank realization certificates, both DEEC books, statement of exports-

imports, cenvat declaration, Appendix-23 duly certified by Chartered Accountant along

with original TR-6 showing payment of excise duty plus interest on excess raw

materiaitaken duty free. As the original prescribed documents have already been

submitted by appellants against the exports made and also duty plus interest paid

against the excess duty free raw material, case needs review by Regional Authority

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 15 read with

section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act,. 1992, as amended,

pass the foltowing order: .. #. .- j...

\rrra[^.*r*r^/ ' .-1ri" ,iiA

o

ORDER

F.No.1 1 /86/2010-1 1/ECA-l

M/s. Givo Ltd.,42nd Mile stone,Delhi Jaipur Highways,Kherki Daula.Gurgaon (Haryana-122 001).

April 23, 2013

Dy. Director General of Foreign _Trade

L.

1. The Adjudication Order No. 05/88/40/300/AM-99|ZALC-VCLA dated27lO4l2A1A passed by Dy. DGFT, New Delhi is set aside and the case is

remanded back to the Regional Authority for de novo consideration.

'\-Otc-G^'cah4rc(V.K. Srivastava)

Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade,'l t

Copy to: The Jt. DGFT, CLA for information and necessary ^"rton) Ilt9'(R.N.'Ivleena)

t

a1

Government of IndiaMinistry of Commerce & Industry

Depaftment of Commerce(Directorate General of Foreign Trade)

Room No.1, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110107.

lntz'-t'l - n -F. N os. 1 1 /402, 3s 4,3s8 t 20 1 1 -1 z ec t : f

il 32t1. S lz*' April 23,2013

Name of the Appellants:


Order passed By:

Appeared on behalf of :

the appellants

(i)(ii)(iii)

Mlt ? ay h^*a, : 2 o / {tn Lr

M/s Hari Om Marmo Grani (P) Ltd.,Aditya Plaza, 1"' Floor,Hero Honda Showroom,Near Bridge, Main Road,Rishbdev, Udaipur.

Order.in-OriginalNo.13l36l 21 I 079/AM03 dated 041 081201 1

No.1 3/36/21l055/AM03 dated 04108120111 31 36121 I 055 dated 041 081 201 1

passed by Dy. DGFT, OIoZonal Jt. DGFT, CLA,Delhi.

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

Shri VK SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

D.K. Kheda, DirectorN.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative

M/s Hari Om Marmo Grani (P) Ltd., New Deihi filed three appeals against thefollowing Adjudication Orders :-

(i) No.13/36/21l079/AM03 daled0410812011(ii) No.13/36/21l055/AM03 dated0410812011(iii) No.1 3/36/21l05s/AM03 dated 04/08/2*Q[!

[-n,.t",o----=^

i'opassed by Jt. DGFT, O/o Jt. DGFT, Jaipur in terms of which a fiscal penalty was imposedon the appellant firm and its Directors for non-fulfillmenl of export obligation againstfoliowing EPCG Authorizations:-

No. 1330000196 dated 11/1212002.No. 1330000174 dated 2111012002; andNo. 133000017Q dated 1111012002

2. The brief facts of the cases are that M/s Hari Om Marmo Grani (P) Ltd. obtainedEPCG Authorization Nos. (D 1330000196 dated1111212002;(ii); No. 1330000174daled2111012002; and (iii) No. 1330000170 dated 1111012002 to import for CIF values of (i) Rs.'f ,08,00,0001; (ii) 54,00,000/-; and (iii) 53,33,3281- respectively subject to the conditionthat the firm shall exp6rt the resultant product as per conditions of authorization inquestion. On expiry of the export obligation period, the appellant firm did not submit theprescribed documents to the Regional Authority in support of fulfillment of exportobligation. Hence, proceedings under Foreign Trade (D&R) Act 1992 were initiated andthe Adjudicating Authority imposed fiscal penalty on the appellant firm in respect of allthree cases.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned three Adjudication Orders all dated O4t0812011,M/s Hari Om Marmo Grani (P) Ltd., Udaipur filed appeals against each order. In theappeals it has been submitted that the firm has fulfilled export obligation up to 3111212012Appellants further stated due to changes in the office staff, the management wasunaware of the procedural default, submission and non-submission of evidences ofexports / realization.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 1810612012 butno one appeared. Instead a letter was received for adjournment. One more opportunityof personal hearing was granted on 1610712012. On that day Shri D.K. Kheda, Directorappeared and stated that some export had taken place but could not show evidence. Heexplained his inability to make pre-deposit and requested for waiver. He requested timeup to 2610712012 to bring prescribed documents related to their case. As requested,another opportunity of personal hearing was granted on 2610712012. On that day ShriD.K. Kheda, Director and Shri N.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative appeared andstated that they had completed only 11 % of exports. Even documents for 11 % had alsonot been shown. He requested further time to show evidence and therefore, one moreopportunity of personal hearing was granted on '1410812012. On that day Shri D.K.

Kheda, Director and Shri N.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative appeared and statedthat if all three EPCG authorizations were clubbed, their total export obligation fulfilledwas about 53 %. They requested time so that they can approach to EPCG Committeefor clubbing and export obligation extension as per provisions in Foreign Trade Policy

and HBP Volume-|. They requested one day's time to make written submission. Time tomake written submission up to '1 7/0812012 was granted but later on postponed to2110812012, On receipt of their written submission, time was granted them to approachEPCG Committee as per their request and next personal hearing was granted on

28103t2013. Appellants applied before the EPCG Committee for extension in Export

(i)(iD

(iii)

,ll,,t]:,:,'''4" :

Obligation Period and clubbing. On that day Sh

N.K. Chopra, Authorized Representative appeared. Appellants submitted that they hadapproached to EPCG Committee for allowing (a) extension in ExportObligation Period; and (b) clubbing of all three authorizations; and (c) inclusion ofalternate product. EPCG Committee in their meeting on 06/0212013 had decided torecommend Director General for relaxation under Para 2.5 of Foreign Trade Policy forinclusion of alternate product, 'slap' and 'tiles' and counting the export of the same fromthe date of submission of their application in the H. Qrs. Director General has approvedthis. EPCG Committee in their meeting daled 0511112012 had also recommended toallow extension in Export Obligation Period for 1"t two years on payment of compositionlee ol 2 % of proportionate duty saved amount on unfulfilled export obiigation or anenhancement of export obligation imposed to the extent of 10 % of total export obligationat the choice of exporter, for each year of extension sought in terms of provisionscontained in Para 5.1 1 (a) of HBP Volume-l and for the further years on payment of 50 %of duty payable in proportion to the unfulfilled export obligation in terms of provisions ofPara 5.11 (b) of HBP Volume-|. Director General has approved this also.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case available on record and writtensubmission made by the appellants with respect to the three Orders-in-Original :-

(D No.13136/211079/AM03dated0410812011(ii) No.13/36i211055iAM03 dated 04/08/2Ol 1

(iii) No.13/36/21l055/AM03 dated0410812011

and also EPCG Committee's decision in the meetings dated 05111120'12, 0610212013 andDirecior General's approval / recommendation on EPCG Committee in all three cases.As Director General on recommendation of EPCG Committee has approved certainrelaxations in all three cases, cases needs review by Regional Authority to implementthese. Appellants are directed to approach Regional Authority as advised by EPCGCommittee with in one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

6. l, therefore, in exercise of powers vested in me vide13 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act,following order:

F.No.1 1 I 402, 394,398/201 1 -1 2lEC A.l

Section 15 read with Section1992, as amended, pass the

April 23,2013

ORDER

1. The Adjudication Orders Nos. (i) 1313612110791AM03 dated 0410812A11; (ii)1313612110551AM03 dated 0410812011; and (iiD 1313612110551AM03 dated0410812011 passed by Jt. DGFT, CLA, Delhi are set aside and cases areremanded back to the Regional Authority for implepentation of decision of EPCGcommittee and de-novo consideration ot the.q€!dCll]},"...

[.l.,"',. \l 0j:'" '. 1""r' -..': , }.-{\.r*t^t'o@rvF]- *l- - t,,;:, .- ',r, f\. .r' ,: t''

' - ''' ' '/''*'

I

.oAppellants are directed to approach Regional Authority as advised by EPCGCommittee with relevant documents with in one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

3. In case of authorizationdocuments are availableRegional Authority with allOrder-in-Apoeal.

No. 1330000174 dated 2111012002, all prescribedwith appellants, appellants will have to approach

ore'scribed documents with in one month of receipt of

L,..8"..**r,-

M/s Hari Om Marmo crani (P) Ltd.,Aditya Plaza, 1"t Floor,Hero Honda Showroom,Near Bridge, Main Road,Rishbdev, Udaipur.

Copy to: Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi.

(V.K. Srivastava)Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade

cl c-L

/,{r,ilK*n

Dy. Director G Trade

I

,{i

I o

Name of the Appellant:


Passed by


I

Government of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and Industry

Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110107.

M/s Plaso Pan Engrs. (lndia) Pvt. Ltd,,C-83, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-|,New Delhi-110020.

Order.in-OriginalNo. 05/887/40/0343/AM0S/ZALC-l l/CLA dated1010512011 passed by Dy. DGFT, Olo ZonalJt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi

ORDER.IN-APPEAL


Apoorva Rajnish, AdvocatePriyadarshi Manish, Advocate

F. No.11t456t2011-12tEcA.tf <3lZ- 3 <'14, , April 26,2013.Eaf" \a;spi".t : 3o|vltas

a1d its Director.

lll,, f'--a- lc- A*rn'lb*.-+

Mis Plaso Pan Engrs. (lndia) Pvt. Ltd, filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 05/88/40/0343lAM05lZALC-lVCLA dated 1010512011 passed by Dy.DGFT, O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi, in terms of which a fiscal penalty wasimposed on the appellant firm for non-fulfillment of export obligation against AdvanceAuthorization No.0510f39895 dated 0611012004.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Plaso Pan Engrs. (lndia) Pvt, Ltd.obtained an Advance Licence No.0510139895 dated 0611012004 for a CIF value ofRs.1,01 ,24,740l- subject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultantproduct as per conditions of authorization in question. The appellant firm wasunder obligation to submit the prescribed documents to the Regional Authority insupport of fulfillment of their export obligation within specified period. But theappellant firm failed to submit the export documents. Hence, proceedings wereinitiated under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and theAdjudicating Authority imposed fiscal penalty

f

a,a 3. Aggrieved by the above(lndia) Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal.fulfilled the export obligation.

F. No,1 11456/201 1 -1 2/ECA.I

1. The Order-in-Original No.1010512011passed by the Dy.case is remanded backconsideration.

mentioned Order dated 1010512011, Mis Plaso PanIn the appeal it has been submitted that the firm had

April 26, 2013.

05l88l4010343lAM0siZALC-IUCLA datedDGFT. CLA. New Delhi is set aside and theto the Regional Authofity for de-novo

ll\t I

l.-s t k'q0arry(V.K. Srivastava)

Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade"\\

4. Appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 03/01/2013 butno one appeared. One more opportunity of personal hearing was made on1510212013. On that day Ms. Apoorva Rajnish, Advocate appeared and requestedone month's time to prepare case and bring the documents. She further stated thatonly part imports were made and export obligation completed proportionately. TimeWas allowed and another opportunity of personal hearing was granted on1510412013. On that day Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Advocate appeared and statedthat export obligation is complete in proportion to imports made. He further statedthat all documents were submitted at Regional Authority on 3111012011 as he wasnot aware thal Order:in-Original have been passed. Regional Authority vide theirletter No. 5l24l40l860lAM07lZALC-lllCLN91B256 dated 2710812012 have writtenthat export documents were submitted on 311101201 1 by the firm after Order-in-Original was passed on 10/05/201 1.

5. I have gone through the facts of the case and Regional Authority's letter No.5l24t40l86OlAMO7lZALC-lllCLN918256 dated 27108t2012 confirming ihat exportdocuments have been submitted by the firm on 31/1012011. As exports documentshave been submitted at Regional Authority on 3111012011 (though after Order-in-Original was passed) as stated by Regional Authority in their letter dated2710812012, case, therefore, needs review by Regional Authority.

6. I, therefore, in exercise of the power vested in me under Section 15 read withSection 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amendedpass the following order:

ORDER

M/s Plaso Pan Engrs. (lndia) Pvt. Ltd.,C-83, Okhla Industrial Area, PhaseJ,New Delhi-110020.

Copy to : Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi for information and

Dy. Di

I

Government of lndiaMinistry of Commerce and lndustry

Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-l10107'

F. No.11/80/20 12-13tECA.tl333 l'33U- '

{

Name of the Appellant:


Passed by


M/s Tirupaii Plasiomatics Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal againstOriginal No. 1312414A826/AM 06 dated 07/05/2012 passed by FTPDGFT, Jaipur, in terms of which a fiscal penalty was imposed onfor non-fulfillment oi export obligation against AdvaNo.1310021 123 dated 10103/2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Tirupa'obtained an Advance Licence No.1310021123 dated 10/Rs.81,42,9661 subject to the condition that the firrproduct as per conditions of authorization in ques'under obligation to submit all prescribed documrsupport of fulfillment of their export obligation 'appellant firm failed to submit ihe export doc'

April 29, 2013

E.t t nL;slv,ht"' otIq/-

M/s Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt' Ltd"8-141-A, Road No. 9D, V.K.'l Area'Jaipur {Rajasthan) * 302013'

0rder-in-0riginalNo13t241401026/AM06 dated 07105/2012 passedby FTDO, 0/o Jt. DGFT, Jaipur-302005.

ORDFR.IN.APPEAL

V. K, SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade

Ravi Gemini, DirectorD.K. Singh, Advocate

r;:rcttb.,-t-ns/ra O.\1{. r'; '. ,:'.

..,"^ .orlptJ"*ro L;'rsH,.,'3ira,in.oo podxa eqg lruqns or porreJ ruru 1ue1;adde

.: :

1

:,i;.lii' iirr :-'"

eql lng 'poued per1ceds urqlran uo11e6;1qo podxe rteql Jo lueurllqnJ 1o l.toddnsur Iluoqlny ;euor6eg €ql ol slueurncop pequcserd lle yuqns o1 uorlebrlqo repunseiv\ [!JlJ luel1adde eq1 uor;senb ur uonEzuoqlnE Jo suor]rpuoc red se ]cnpordluellnser eq1 podxe lleqs u.lru aql leql uourpuoc eq1 og lcefqns -/996'Zt'l.BsUJo anle^ llc e roJ g00zlt0l0l powp tzLLz00!0r'oN ocuecrl ecue^pv ue paurelqo'pll i^d scrlelriolseld ;1ednrr1 s/l4 leql ere esec eql Jo slceJ leuq eql 'Z

'900ztt0t0t patep eztLz00tet oNuorlezuor.llnv ecue^pv lsure6e uotlebr;qo podxa lo lueullulnJ-uou roJu.rrr1 1ue;;adde eq1 uo pesodur se,r,r r{11eued lecsr; e qcrqan Jo slura} ur Jndref '1JOO'It teuoz o/o 'ooIJ r(q pessed zroztgotLo palep 90 wvlgzolovtvztgl, o1r1 1eur6u6-ur-rapJo eql lsurebe leedde ue pe;t1 pil t^d scrleruolseld rlednrl s761

eleoo^pv 'q6u!S 'y'Orolcarlc '!ul(uae lAeu

aperl u61elo3 Io lerauag JolcoJlq 'lppvBÊlseûs 'y 'n

-lvfddv-NFU30uo

'9g97gg-rnd;Et'IJgCt 'lf o/O 'OOIJ Aqpassed ZrcUgOt tO polEp 90nV/9ZOI}tItZIeroN

leu;61.t9-u5reprg

'et0Z0e - (ueqlsefeg) rnd;e1'earv t'y'n'06'oN pEoE'v-ttt-g

"pll 'l^d sclleruolseld qednrll s111

sluelladde aq1

Jo lleqaq uo luas€rd

Iq passe6

:1sulebe paJeadde raprg

:1ue1leddy oql ,o oueN

arclslls;'aryy'svf {"tq- <r / t'vca/il'ztoztogtrloN' J> /) t'l'-7,f;r1;'l

'L0101.t-lqlo6 inap 'uereqg 6oIp61eperl u61ero3 lo lelou€e olEJolcarl6t

oorauuroC 1o luauryedeqfu1snpu; pue ocrauuog tro fu1sru1111

Plpul Jo luaururoô0 I

tLoz'62 lvdv

o

'leaddv-uFraprO lo ldlacallo r.lluouJ auo ur qlrM ,luoqlnv leuoroeg a.loleq eues ecnpoJd ol suollceJlp qllfl\

rurueC uqs ol peurnleJ ueoq oletl eslcxS lelluo3 Jo slollel leutbuo qlog 'fipoq1ny

leuorbag {q rretnel spaau 'esec r{lt.roqlny leuotbag p LL1ZltOltZ palpp raila-lIcuercrleg Jo slueurelnbat eql leaul elce]-eulud eslcxf leJiu€C tuoJl et0zlt0/90pue €Lgzltgigg pelep slepal sV 'uotlsanb ul uonezlloqlne 1o lcedsal ut slndut 1o

luno3ee aq1 DurIlrpec €LOZ1VO19O polep asicxf lerlue3 uolj lallel leutbuo osle pue

llparc lVnNfC / IVnCOf! pelreê lou oêLl ullq aql leql 6u[ets e L0zltol80 palep

aslcxl lerluaC uo.U sLeltol ;eut6uo pue t,lozll1trL petep U\V/tfldC3/et oN logelapr^ sluaurloc s,I1r-roqlny lBuol6eu 'asec aql Jo slce; sql q6nolql auo6 aneq 1 9

'uorlsanb ur uorlezuoqlne 1o ;cedsat ut slndut lo lunocce eqt 6ulIllyec t,lOZtVOtgOpelep osrcxf Je4ueC uotJ Jel]€l ;eutbuo laqloue pacnpotd osle sluelleddy'lrpen IV1N3O / IVnOan [ue pa;rene lou eêLl rilrl] leq] 6u[e]s eLgzltgigg pe]ep

asrcxS leriue3 luorl lalal leutbtlo pacnpord t,lOZlVggZ uo slue1;eddy 'pesn slnduljo lunocce umoqs lou peq ultl (lD pue :uollElelcop IV1OOyU uant6 lou peLl ull4(r) leql selets lrozltoltz pelep reuel r{cuetctla6 s,fluoqlny ;euot6ag 'lL\zl$lezpalep railal lcuerctle6 s,,{1poq1ny leuotbeg tad se sluoulnsop pecnpoJd

lou peq urrl 7 slue1;edde leql peleis aêq ErcZlr1lv, petep gL ll\lv/tl.td3f/et'oN rallel JraL{l apr^ slueuruloc llaql ul ,{1uoqlny leuoroag 'aleldcuoc st uoDeotlqo

uodxe lerll palels pue peteedde JolceJtq 'lulueC lêu lltls êp

leql uO 'tl11lr1lg7uo petuerb sel Euueeq leuoslad ]o Iltunpoddo olou auo pue pe/solle se/v\

oturl 'pssn slndur 1o luelunoccv pela;leq3 / aslcxf lellua3 uo.tt e;ectlrpec 7 lndut

lo iunocce ecnpord o] €ttltl s,Llluoul auo pelsonbol lull'use uqs 'll1zlt1lEZ poppre11e1 ,{cuercrlaq 1o rilder pue pesn slndut 1o }unocce uent6 }ou peq ulu eq} leq}palels peq ilOZll1lgg palep lallal rtoql ap!^ Iluoqlny ;euotBeg ps^lacol ueaq oslepeq AUoqlnV leuorbeg ulolJ sluaululo3 ,{1ddns ;o ;oo.rd. osle pue ,{luoqlnv lcalotdr.uorl olecr+ruec 1uaru,{e6 pa}lluqns peq [aq1 'podx3 paueao Jo €sec eq] seM

ll aculs apeul s1rodrur o1 uorpodotd ut e1a1dr-uoc se^ uo!]E0!lqo yodxe 1eq1 pa1e1s

pue pareedde aleco^pv 'rl6uls 'y O uLls pue Jolselt6 'lurueg lêg uqs lep leqtuO € !02le0/g;, uo buueaq leuostad 1o ,'{ltunyoddo ue uant6 elo^ sluelleddv 'V

'uoqebt;qo podxa eq1 pellulnl peq |.ullJ

erll leql pe$ruqns ueaq seq 1r leadde eq1 u1 'leedde ue pal4 'pl'l l^d sclleulolseldnednrl slî'ZrOZlgOlLo pelep roplo pouolluaul aôqe eq1 rtq penau66y 0

'rolcollo slr pue uJlJ 1uel1edde uo ^lleued

lecsr; pasodLut Iluoqlnv our;octpnlpyaq) pue Z66f 'lcv (uouelnbeg 3 luerudolerreq) epell u6te.ro3 lopun p;lerllul

o

, IORDER

F. No.1 1/80/2012-13lECA.l April 29,2013.

1. The Order-in-Original No. 1312414010261AM 06 dated 0710512012 passedby the FTDO, Olo Zonal Jt. DGFT, Jaipur is set aside and the case is

remanded back to the Regional Authority for de-novo consideration,Appellants are directed to produce both original letters of Central Excisebefore Regional Authority with in one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.At the time of review if any excess duty and interest is found payable,same wili have to be paid by appellants with in 30 days of issue ofDemand Notice by Regional Authority.

M/s Tirupati Plastomatics Pvt. Ltd.,8-141.A, Road No.9D, V.K.1 Area,Jaipur (Rajasthan) - 302013.

(V.K. Srivastava)Addl, Director General of Foreign Trade

r\c,

Copy to : FTDO, O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT, Jaipur for information and necessarv action.

I!

)-ffi,

2.

\to.,?-o**r-

1

Government of IndiaMinistry of Commerce and lndustry

Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign Trade

Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-'l1001{

Name of the Appellant : M/s. Synergy Natural Cares,E-2, Udyog Nagar lndustrial Area,Main Rohtak Road,Delhi4l.

Orderappealed against: Order-in'OriginalNo.0 5 128 | 421 0 A04lAM0 5/DES -lV/C LAdated Nil passed by FTDO,OloZonal Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-110002.

ORDER.IN.APPEAL

Passed by V. K. SrivastavaAddl. Director General of Foreign Trade


: S.L. Maggu, Managing Director

M/s Synergy Nat'ural Cares, Delhi filed an appeal against the Order-in-OriginalNo.05/28i42I0004/AM04/DES-|V/CLA dated Nil passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal Jt.DGFT, CLA, New Delhi-1 10002 in terms of which a fiscal penaltywas imposed onM/s Synergy Natural Cares for non-fulfillment of export obligation against AdvanceAuthorization No. 0510124231 dated 2610412004.

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Synergy Natural Cares obtained anAdvance Authorization No. 0510124231 dated 2610412004 for a CIF value of Rs.14,50,665i- subject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultant productas per conditions of authorization in question. The appellant firm was underobligation to submit the prescribed documents to the Regional Authority insupport of fulfillment of their export obligation within specified period. But the

proceedings were

i I

F.No.11 t224t2012-1 3/ECA- | 33 i5,a3 3Ll . . April 29,2013

be"2-as$"a^oy |l+o 13

appellant fiain failed to sulimif the eiBort doCuments.

r- rk'wrlarq

oinitiated under Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the

Adjudicating Authority imposed fiscal penalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Adjudication order dated Nil, M/s synergy

Natural Cires filed an appeal. ln the appeal it has been submitted that during the

period of operation of the said advance authorization, there was a major slump in the

world economy as a resutt of which"the unit had to be closed, staff members of the

firm had to leave the job and appellants were unable to locate the original documents

in the office. Since appellants could not trace out / locate the original authorization,

the firm could not import the raw material and were totally unaware that original copy

of unutilized authorization had to be returned to Regional Authority as no import was

made against the said authorization in question.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 30/04/2013.

on request of appellants, the personal hearing was preponed -to 25l04i20:13 since

appelfants vide their e-mail dated 24t04t2013, had requested for early hearing and

their inavailability on 30t0412013. Request was accepted. on 2510412013, Shri s.L.

Maggu, Managing Director appeared and stated that authorization was not utilized

for imports. He produced original letter of lcD, Tuglakabad ( Port of Registration )

daled 25102t2013 in response to his RTI application stating that advance

authorization No. 0510124231 dated 26104t2004 was not registered at lcD,Tuglakabad, New Delhi.

S. I have gone through the facts of the case and submission of original letter of

lCD, Tugtakabad (Port of Registration) dated 2510212013 stating that the said

authorizJtion in question was not registered at lCD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi lf the

authorization was not utilized for imports, cause of action does not arise. Case

therefore, needs review by Regional Authority. Original letter of ICD' Tuglakabad

has been returned to shri Maggu with directions to produce same before Regional

Authority with in one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

6. I therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under section 15 read with

section 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1 992' as

amended, pass the following order:

ORDER

F.No.1 1 12241201 2-1 3/ECA- | April 29,2013

1. The order-in-original No. 05/2 I t 42\OOO4 | AM 05/DES-lv/cLA dated Nil passed

by FTDO, OGfl, CtA, tlew Delhi-1 10002 is set aside and the case is

remanded back to the Regional Authority for de-novo considqration'de-novo considqratlon.

t',,., ' ,,' .,,:o,

)r." fakW)'h3-/lqf"f ..

J ':,' 'J

o2. Appellants are directed to produce original letter of lCD, Tuglakabad at

Regional Authority within one month of receipt of Order-in-Appeal.

i\tl\t I

F-q r-l.'r'afiqr=,(VJCStivastava)

' Addl. Director@neral of Forcign TradeM/s. Synegy Natural Garcs,E-2, Udyog l.lagr Indtstrial Area,Main RohhkRoad,Delhi41.


'l

o Government of lndiaMinistry of Gommerce and lndustry

Department of CommerceDirectorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110107.

F. No.11t1e7t201o-1llEcA.t/1 3\{ jSs 6 .

I

April 30, 2013.

>rA- p ,AV"M : or f slu ryName of the Appellant:


Passed by


..Mis Cimmco Lindfed,A-35, Ground Floor,Sector-2, NOIDA - 201 301.

Order-in-Original05188 I 40 123 I AM 98/ZALC-l/CLA dated27l04l2UA passed by Dy. DGFT, Olo ZonalJt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi

ORDER-IN-APPEAL


P,K. Bahl, Authorized RepresentativeS. Mitra, Chief Manager-Commercial

,,s'" ' "'";

i".,i ' it.":,. ,,,: lt".t,"--. ,-,

-.,'

M/s Cimmco Limited filed an appeal against the Order_in_Original No.1sl99l4ll23lAMg8/zAlc-ticlA dated 27t04t2010 passed by the FTDo, 6to zonalJt' DGFT, cLA, New Delhi, in terms of which a fiscar penaity was imposed on theappellant firm for non-fulfillment of export obligation against Advance AuthorizationNo.Pili0089238 dated 1 1i02l1998.

2. The brief facts of the cdse are that M/s cimmco Limited obtained an AdvanceLicence No.P/1i0089238 dated 11lo2l1gg! for a clF value of Rs.'1 ,94,00,000/-subject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultant product as perconditions of authorization in question. The appellant firm was under obligation tosubmit the prescribed documents to the Regional Authority in support of dlfillmenrof their export obligation within specified period. But the appellant firm failed tosubmit the export documents. Hence, proceedings were irtritiated under Foreign

a

.

o

Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 and the Adjudicating Authority imposedfiscal penalty on appellant firm and its Director.

3. Aggrieved by the above mentioned Order dated 2710412010, M/s CimmcoLimited filed an appeal. In the appgal it has been submitted that the firm was underBIFR vide case No. 37212000 dated 2711112000 and was declared as sick industrialcompany under the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985. Therehabilitation package has since been sanctioned by BIFR on 1110312010. BIFR has

allowed 8 years extension from COD for fulfillment of export obligation imposed on

account of duty free imports. The firm was closed due to lockout at their BharatpurPIant Division and HeaVy Engineering Division w.e.t. 1311112000. While the firm wasunder revival, the appellants received the Adjudication Order daled 2710412010.

4. Appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 0911012012 butno one appeared. One more opportunity of personal hearing on admission wasgranted on 1411212012 but ihis time again, no one appeared. Another opportunity ofpersonal hearing was granted on 0710212013 but no one appeared. Last oppodunityof personal hearing was granted on 2110312013. On that day Shri S. Mitra, ChiefManager-Commercial and Shri P.K. Bahl, Authorized Representative appeared and

requested some time to search / trace the documents, prepare i give chronology ofevents and make written submission. Time was allowed and last opportunity ofpersonal hearing was granted pm 2610412013. On that day Shri P.K. Bahl,Authorized Representative appeared and made a written submission stating thatafter Adjudication Order was passed, the Regional Authority has extended ExportObligation Period up to 1110312015. He produced a copy of Regional Authority'sletter No. 05i88/040/0033/AM98 dated 2111212010 extending Export ObligationPeriod up to 11/03/2015 i.e. for 5 years from the date of registration on BIFR i.e.

1110312010 against the authorization in question,

5. I have gone through the facts of the case, written submission made by theappellants stating that after Adjudication Order was passed, Regional Authority has

extended Export Obligation Period upto 1110312015 and Regional Authority's letterNo. 05/88/040/0033/AM98 dated 2111212010 extending Export obligation Period up

to 11t0312015 i.e. for.5 years from the date of registration on BIFR. Since the

Regional Authority has already extended Export Obligation Period up to 1110312015,

theie is still time to make export and therefore, there is no cause to take action till

extended Export Obligation Period is over and appellants fail to fulfill exportobligation with in extended Export Obligation Period.

6. l. therefore, in exercise of the power vested in me under seciion 15 read with

to

ORDER

F. No.111197 1201 0-1 1 ECA.I

M/s Cimmco Limited,A-35, Ground Floor.Sector-2, NOIDA - 201 301.

Copy to : Jt. DGFT, CLA, New Delhi for information and

V-

April 30,2013.

datedand the

1. The Order-in-Originat No. OS1BA!4O1231AM}BIZALC-UCLA2711A2A10 passed by the FTDO, CLA, New Delhi is set asidecase is remanded back to the Regional Authority.

Addl. Director General

fl

l.t, ah**zlo(V.K. Srivastava)of Foreign Trade

iI O Government of India

Ministry of Commbrce and IndustryDepartment of Commerce

Directorate General of Foreign Trade \Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110107' \

l<<Ut a elr,F.No.11/419, 526, 518, 633t2011-12tECA-/---"-)-' u' April 30' 2013

| '-^ J ,l t:.L-.+ , . l)de 7 d-tspc.4c2: ol lSlta ryName of the Appellant: M/s Paharpur Plastics

(Divison of Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.)'Plot No. 10, Industrial Site'lV,Sahibabad-201010Distt. Ghaziabad.

Order-in.OriginalNo. 05/84/040/001 40/AM96/DES.lll/CLAdated 25|1012011No, 051841040/00897,AM95/DES.lll/CLAdated 2'|,111120'11No. 05/84/040/00407/AM96/DES. I ll/CLAdated 25110120'l'l05 l84t 0 40 I 00 484/AM9 6/DEs. ll ucLAdated 211'1112011

ORDER-IN.APPEAL


Order appeal against:

Passed by

Appeared on behalf ofthe appellants

: S.C. Gupta, Manager (Commercial)

M/s Paharpur Plastics (Division of Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.), Ghaziabad

filed four appeals against the following Adjudication Orders :-

(i) No. 05i84/040i00140/AM96/DES.llvCLA dated 2511012011

(iD No.05/84/040/00897/AM95/DES.lll/CLA dated 21111t2011(iii) No. 05/84/040/00407/AM96/DES. I I l/C LA dated 25 I 1 0 1201 1

(iv) No.05/84i040/00484iAM96/DES.lll/CLA dated 2111112011

passed by FTDO, O/o Zonal Jt. DGFT, CLA,the appellant firm for non-fulfillment of exportauthorizations:-

New Delhi, imposing fiscal penalty on .

(i)

(ii)

( iii)

(iv)

obligation agains\ following advance.-,1 ' 't. s .-.1 0

_i . t'{p1c,{.rrf;anq

c'i rtr " i'\.. j

,;.1".1*:-.\'n.""

O (i) pwr227g46ldated 25l08i1995;(ii) PtWt2273454 dated 21108/1995;(iii) PM12274937 dated 27h211995; and(iv) P41V13038961 dated 07/02i1996

2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Paharpur Plastics (Division ofPaharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.), Ghaziabad obtained four Advance AuthorizationsNo. (i) PM/2273468 dated 2510811'995; (ii) No.PM12273454 dated 2110811995; (iii)

N9.PM12274937 dated 2711211995: and (iv) No.PAff/3038961 dated 0710211996 toimport for a CIF values of (i) Rs. 6,22,1661- (US $ 19720); (ii) Rs.6,15,150/- (US $19497); (iii) Rs.18,78,260/- (US $ 53710); and (iv) Rs.88,52,5691 (US $ 254750)subject to the condition that the firm shall export the resultant product as per

conditions of authorization in question. On expiry of the export obligation period,

the appellant firm did not submit the prescribed export documents to the licensingauthority in support of fulfillment of export obligation. Hence, proceedings underForeign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992 were initiated and the Adjudicating Authorityimposed fiscal penalty on the appellant firm.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants filed appeal against this order- Theappellants have submitted that the firm had fulfilled the export obligation well in timeand submitted all prescribed / original documents for redemption at the RegionalAuthority long back. Appellants have also submitted that prescribed documentsevidencing payment of customs duty saved plus interest on unfulfilled portion whichwas settled through Settlement Commission vide final Order No. F-91ICUS/03-SC(PB) dated 1410712003 were submitted at Regional Authority. The firm submittedthat Show Cause Notice was timely replied by the appellants well in time. Appellantsfurther stated that the firm had submitted an application before the Customs &Central Excise Settlement Commission for closer of pending advance authorizationcases.

4. The appellants were given an opportunity of personal hearing on 1110612Q12.

On that day Shri S.C. Gupta, Manager appeared and requested 4-6 weeks time tomake written submission. Time was allowed and another opportunity of personal

hearing was granted on 0810812012. On that day Shri S.C. Gupta, Manager(Commercial) appeared and stated that they were depositing penalty in one week's

time and did not want to proceed further in the case. He further stated that they

would submit written submission in 10-15 days. Though written submission have not

been made but Regional Authority vide their letter RegionalAuthority vide their letterNo. 05/84/40/140/AM96/DES.IIUCLA dated 121122012 has confirmed that the firmhas deposited Demand Drafts of Rs. 5000/- as penalty amount against each of the

above said Orders-in-Original. Later, appellants vide their letter dated 1510412013

wrote that they want to withdraw al the four appeals as the matter has already been

closed after paying the respective penalties and Export obligation DischargeCertificate has been issued against these cases,

5. I have gone through the facts of the cases available on record, letter of .

Regional Authority letter No. o5l84l4ol140lAM96/DES.lll/cLA dated 1211212012

conlirming that penalty amount against these orders have been deposited and

t..

'IO O""n deposited and appellants do not want further proceedings in these cases and

requested to withdraw appeals, these appeals are disposed off as withdrawn.

6. l, therefore, in exercise of the power vested in me under Section 15, read withSection 13 of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, asamended, pass the following order:

ORDER

F.Nos. 111419, 526, 518, 63312011-12lECA-l

The appeals are disposed off as withdrawn.

April 30, 2013

!-.k*,4"(V.K. Srivastava)


M/s Paharpur Plastics(Divison of Paharpur Cooling Towers Ltd.),Plot No. 10, Industrial SiteJV,Sahibabad-201010Distt. Ghaziabad

Copy for information to the Jt. DGFT, CLA for information and

Tn-i\\ -,-aYffi

!l

{,i{

F.No.1 1/8r/20r Lrzncu [3au7 ;

gut. April 30. 2013

>frf *Pot4: a lt(-s

Government of IndiaNlinistry of Commerce & Industry

Directorate General of foreign Trade

Name of the Petitioner :M/s Diamond Power Infrasructure Lrd.,(Formerly known as Diamond Cables Ltd.)P.O.Box No. 3008, Essen House,5i 12, B.I.D.C., Gonva,Vadodara- 390 016.

Review Petition against

Passed by : Dr.Anup K. PujariDirector General ofForeign Trade

Review 0rder

This Review Petition has been filed against Orders-in-Originals passed by Joint DGFT,Vadodara. There are five such orders as listed above.

2. The brieffacts are as follows:

(D M/s. Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd. prefened appeals against the orders-m-originai in each ofthe five cases as undet:

S.

No.Order-in-Orieinal Number Date such an Order-in-

Original was madeAppeal filed on

I 3 4 I 0 1 / 002/ 07 8 / AMl 1 I 3 07 6.307 7 17 .09.20 | 0 127 .09.201 0 11.05.2011

2. 34/549IAMOOIALS,ECAI3379,3380

27 .09.2010 122. t 0.20 1 0 1 1 .05.201 1

3. 3 4 I 53 8 / AM00 / ALS /EC N 3 07 6 24.09.2010 27.06.2012

4. i 4 I 5'1 2 I A}/,00 I ALS I 47 49 05.01.2011 27 -06.2012

5. 34 | 80 / 4219 | A}401 I 43t7,43 t8 03.12.201011 5.12.2010 27.06.2012

S.No. Adjudication Order1. 3 4 / 0 | I 0021 07 8 I AMl I I 301 6.307'7 dated 1 7.09.20 1 0 | 2'7 .09.201 0

2. 3 4 / 5 49 / AM00 / ALS IEC N 3 37 9.33 8 0 dated 27 .09.20 1 0 /22.1 A.20 rc3. 34/538/AM00/ALS/ECA/3076 dated 24.09.201 04. 34/ 5721 AM00 I ALS I 47 49 dated 05.0 1.201 I5. 3 4 | 80 | 421 9 I AM}l I 43 l'7,43 18 dated 03. 1 2.20 1 0l 1 5. 1 2.20 1 0

t (ii) In addition to filing appeal before the Apeilate Athority in the above stated 5 cases, thefirm has filed a review peition vide its letter dated 24.07.2013 under Section 16 ofFT(D&R) Act, 1992. The firm has staled that they have made various representationsbefore PRC and GRC for clubbing oftheir Advance Licences.

The appellant firm had obtained 5 Advance Authorizations. They ,r'ete not able tosubmit relevant export documents showing completion of export obligation. TheAdjudicating Authority, after. providing personal hearings in these cases, passedAdjudication Orders imposing penalties. The details of these licences, their CIFvalues, FOB values and penalty imposed are given in the table given belou':

3. I have examined the complete facts ofthese cases and find as follows:

(i) Applicaat has filed 5 appeals against 5 Adjudication Orders as given in Para 2 above.In addition, applicant has filed 2 more requests for clubbing against two AdvanceLicence Nos. (i) I 3 81 44 dated26.5. 2000; and (iD3 4 1 0006829 d,ated 2 5.3.2003. Againstthese 2 licences, no Adjudication Order has been passed.

(iD Applicant had filed a request for clubbing for 7 Advance Authorizations before PRC

,,/ and PRC has not considered the request of clubbing. .PRC in its meeting dated' 15.2.2011 has rejected the request stating that the firm has made a request for clubbing

after a period ofexpiry of more than 4 years from the date of expiry ofvalidity ofEOPaulhorization.

(iiD Appellant has filed a request before GRC which in its meeting on 28. 10.201 t haddecided that such cases are to be dealt with by Regional Authority of DGFT, as perDGFT's Public Notice No.79 dated 13.10.2011. Hence, GRC decided to advise thefirm to approach the concemed RA. It seems that RA has not alloq'ed the facility ofclubbing, as per Public Notice No.79 dated 13.10.2011 because in 5 casEs,Adjudication Order has already been passed. Though the applicant has filed appeal

(iii)

g"i j'!i: " 'S

s.No,

Order-in-Original No. Imports(CIF value)(in Rupees)

ExportObligation(FOB value)(in Rupees)

License No. anddate

PenalfyImposed(in Rupees)

1 3 4 / 0l I 0021 07 I I AMr 1 | 3 o76,3077

2,63,01,248(us $ 60144s)

3,51,03,668 (US $802s53)

0138143 dated07.03.2000

2.00,86,390

2. 34/549/AM00tALS1ECN3379,3380

3,3 9,86,898(us $ 777021)

45098223 (US $1034363)

013 8145 dated07.03.2000

3,05,88,210

3. 341538/AMOO/ALS/ECAJ3076

1,61,15,301(us $ 36s549)

1934s257 (US $438867)

0138234 dated26.05.2000

3,22,30,602

4. 3415721AM00/ ALSt4749 40666s10 (US$ 929752\

s4132500 (US $1241s71)

013 8147 dated07 .03.2000

3,96,879

5. 3 4 / 80 / 42 | 9 I AMO I I 43 t7,4318

1,72,98,386(rJS$ 282073)

r,47,96,413 (US $339367\

3410000147 dated17 .05.2000

2,45,96;772

under Section 15 of FT(D&R) Act, 1992, the appeal proceedings have not been

disposed bff.

(i") The appellant firm has stated that it has completed export obligation substantially inrespect of some Advance Authorizations and has expofted more than the required

export obligation in some other Advance Authorizations. It has stated that tf 7

Advance Authorizations are permitted to be clubbed, then they will be able to account

for the imports made against the export ofall the 7 Advance Authorizations.

4. DGFT had issued Public Notice No.79 dated 13.10.2011 r.r'herein facility of clubbing

was provided even for authorization issued dwing EXIM Policy 1992-9"1 , 1997-2002 and

2002 onrvards. In respect of licences issued during 1992-97 and 1997-2Q02, the facility was

available 1i11 31.03.2012. Hence, the request had to be filed before 31.03.2012. out ofthese

7licences, 6licences have been issued in 2000 and 1 licence issued on 25.03.2003. The very

fact thal GRC has taken cognizance of the request undel Public Notice No.79 dated

13.10.2011 in its meeting on 28.10.2011, clearly establishes that the request for clubbing

under Public Notice No.79 dated 13.10.2011 has been filed by the firm before 31.03.2012.

Hence, it is appropriate that the requests of the firm be considered by RA, vadodara under

Public Notice No.79 dated 13.10.2011 in respect of these 7 Advance Authorizations including

5 Advance Authorizations against which Adjudication Orders have been passed and two other

Advance Authorizations namely Advance Authorization No.(i)138144 dated 26.5.2000; and

(ii)3410006829 dated 25.3.2003, wherein Adjudication Orders have not been passed'

5. Therefore, in exercise ofpowers vested in me in Section 16 of FT(DR), the followingorder is made:

0rder

F.No.1 1/8 l/201 1 -12/EC A-l April 30,2013

All the five orders-in-original cited above are set aside. Accordingly the appeal procaedings

that are pending would abate. All the cases are remanded back to RA,Vadodara, forconsidering the request for ciubbing of7 Advance Authorizations in terms of Public Notice

No.79 dated 13.10.2011. The respondent is directed to produce the relevant documents before

the Regional Authority within 30 days of this order for further action. L t,L.- I- h*'

L \'))--(Anup K. Pujari)

Directorate General of Foreiqn Trade

M/s Diamond Power Infrastructure Ltd.,(Formerly knowrr as Diamond Cables Ltd.)P.O.Box No. 3008, Essen House,5/12, B.I.D.C., Gorwa,Vadodara - 390 016.

CoPp't, ; {p,t iJL,-y-g .€.t thb/a4q, {*-t'"1*^ ann a"^d

veu-tyatt2At*\'s^ V**3 .., *., *. -=J 6li1,,i^r*u*'i. I

i, -fq s,

't?. ffi,l1, rorelsr,

tGovernment of India

_Ministry of Commerce and lndustryDirectorate General of Foreiqn Trade

Udyog Bhavan, t'tew Oilni

F. No 1 1/329/20 tO-t t rccn l?ZS\rsr.c,.,IDqted: lst,April, 2013

Name of the Appellant :

>"k +A;tW ^-,.-

{;v1 u f'u rs

Order appealed against :

Passed by :

M/s. Gaurav Exportraiies pvt. Ltd.,93, Bashyakaralu Road, (West),R.S. Purarn.Coimbatore- 641002

Order-in-original No,04 dated 6'n October,DGFT, Coimbatore.

ORDER-IN.APPEAL

32t95t199t0049tAM2005 passed by Jt.

Mukesh Bhatnagar,Appellate Authority &Addl, Director General ol Foreign Trade

_ . JT* appeal was fil-ed on 13m January, 201 1 under section .15 of the ForeignTrade ( Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 M/s. Gaurav Exoortrades pvt. Ld.c-oimbatore against order-in-original No. 32l9s/199/0049/AM 04 dated 6th october,2005 passed by Jt. DGFT, Coimbaiore.

2. M/s. Gaurav Exportrades pvt, Ltd., Coimbatore had obtained EpCG LicenseNo P/cG/2154742 dated 5.03.1997 for clF value of Rs. zzi7440t under 10%concessional rate of customs duty scheme for import of Machines with an obligation toexport cotton Knitted Embroidery Garments for F.o.B. va)ue ot us $ 24g3zgl-within aperiod of 5 years with effect of the date of issue of the license. The Appellant wasunder obligation to submit export documents to the Licensing Authority showingfulfillment.of export obligation, but they did not do so. Therefore, the Adjudicatin[Authority issued a show cause notice dated 26.0s,2004 un der section ia to ftreAppellant and its directors. Since, the Appellant did not furnish the prescribeddocuments, the Adjudicating Authorjty in its Order ln Original dated 6.1O,2OOS imposedpenalty of Rs. 44,74,88A1- on the appellant and its Directors.

3, Aggrieved by tlre above said Order ln Original, the appellant prefened an appealstaung thai they had utilized the license for importation of capital goods and fulfilled theentire export obligation but they could noi submit the export documents in time. Theyalso,prayed to dispense with the pre-deposit of penalty amouni.

4. Opportunity of Personal Hearing (PH) was granted to the Appellant on 7.06.2011which was postponed to 13.07.2011, 5.08.2011 on the request of the appellant. ShriKishore S,iAtrthorized Representative appeared for Personal Hearing sn b.08,2011 andstated that export obligation was fulfilled but the description of the export product shownon the F.Eipbing Bills does not match with the descriptions ot the license. He askedfurthedfifrtb for depositing custom duty saved amount aiong with interest to ihe customs

I U ut'-''i

iy'

ffir,tv for regutarizing the case Next PH was given on 1909'201 1 which was

postponed to 8.11.2011 n,i#ont "pfearea .t'l*-eH was given on '16122011'

z.oi.2012.rhd apperrant.'i"'l'I"J'{1'!9i!:ll;:l,l:t'":I1t"i1HS:,1Ti*i:";2.0i.2012. rhd appertant ..fftjf;!:tfid|i:ffffi-io ol-," "ip""'"d

and no newfto do so. Further PH was g

;il;"* submitted in support of the appeal'

5. RAs comments on the appeal were called for arrd the RA vide their letter dated

8.o4.2o11reported tnat on s"ciliin-1ioi'"*pttt l?ty5itt submitted bv the flrm' lt was

found that Shipping eirrs sui;ii;tti to*a'is qffiJlT:Tif export obligation do not-snow

the description as Embroroeied i;J't"nt' and sh'ow onlv Readvmade Garments srnce'

export product allowed rn tit" r[lniJ i] imbroidered knitted Readymade Garments'

i#*'siri -ppi.

g B s we re n l'tU',;;':**i ;;f ruii S ? g:! lt'g!:i{}} {i1t il-1:

. was shortfall in annual aver

were siven to tne apperralnl tH "{'tl;ing -tn" p"iioo 2002 to 2004 to furnish

o[..tii"o documents bui they did not comply'

6 Accordinglv, the case is examined yitf-l:l::"i* to submissions made in the

appeal and RA's commenti' 'itre

appeat is grossty Oelayed iraving been filed with a

dbiay of S years without ,.iir.iii"fr,'. i'.unOi. rn"O|.O"r'-in-Original verv clearly states

that the appellant had not i'ilrnm"oiri" ntgscribed,onoinal export documents snowlng

discharge of export olriga;;'a;ainsi ti'i.:mpyqneo a"Jfrorization They also failed to

submit the prescrlbeo oo"u'it"nt! -"u"n

at the time.of appeat tn that situatron they also

faited to regutarize tn" "i'JJ'ov

-qtitlili tt t'=t"* 'duty saved amount alo'ng with

interesttothecustomsn,tr,'o,.itrl.ThLrefore,inthe-ansenieoftheorigina|evidence.ofreourarization the case, th;;;il';";ffilr justification to interfere with the order-rn-

"tiil'.ii p"it"O by the adjudicating authority'

7. I, therefore' in exercise of the powers v9{9! in me under Section 15 of the

Foreisn Trade to"u"ropmliii ;";;'"fi;;) A"t' i-uez' as amended' pass the followins

TTCopy to Ab. DGFT, Coimbatore for information and necessary action

or0er:

F. No.1 1/329/201 0-1 1/ECA I

The appeal is dismissed being time barred and having no merits'

Addl. Djrector General of Foreign Trade

M/s. Gaurav ExPortrades Pvt Ltd ,

93, BashYakaralu Road, $Nest),R.S. Puram,Coimbatore- 641002.

I RamanAnS'Meena. )

, Director General of foreign TradeP\0\"

r*"I

il

o Government of lndiaMinistry of Commerce and Industry

Directorate General of Foreign TradeUdyog Bhavan, New Delhi

F. No. 1 1/31 3/20 o2-O3tECA.tlW: Dated: 15'nApril.2013

Name of the Appellant ; M/s, Pharmed Medicare P!''t, Ltd,,Pharmed Garden,Whitefield Road,Bangalore- 560048.

Order appealed against : Refusal of Advance License vide Letter No.

3Z?Ti'ffi::| 12402'2003 issued bY Jt

Passed by :

ORDER-IN-APPEAL

Mukesh Bhatnagar,Appellate Authority &Addl, Director General of Foreion Trade

_ Tjris appeal was filed on 21"1 March, 2003 under seciion 1 5 of the ForeignTrade (Development & Reguration) Act, 1992 by M/s. pharmed Medicare pvt. Lt;.,Bangalore against Refusal of issue of Advance License vide letter No.07124104010o066/AM 03 dated 27th August, 2002 & Letrer No. o7/z1to4ot2g6tAW03/3095 dated 24,02.2003 issued by Jt. DGFT, Bangalore.

2. M/s Pharmed Medicare pvt. Ltd., Bangarore had firecr Advance LicenseApplication No, PMpUAUtto-212002 dated 12.05:2002 which was relected by the Jt.DGFT, Bangatore vide their letter No, 07l24to4otooo66/Alvt 03 datei zz.oe.zooz onthe grounds that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported that there werecertajn c€1es against the appellanl firm and another firm in the name and style M/s,Pharmed chemicals "Pharmed Gardens', white Field Road, Bangalore oieratingunder the same address and had obtained several Advance Licenses and had mis-utilized the imported materials. The Jt. DGFT held that both the firms ooeratino fromthe same address were closely interlinked in the duration 1994-gs, 1996:97 p"irJ r*at leasi one Director was common to both these companies. The RA rejected theAdvance, License application vide their letter dated 27.og.2oz till the customs duiiesalong with interest thereon is recovered from the other firm M/s. pharmed chemicalsLimited, Pharmed Gardens, white Field Road, Bangalore. Aggrieved with thisRejection Letter, the firm had filed review application before the RAI Bangalore whichwas also rejected vide their letter dated 21t24,02,ZOO3.

I Aggrieved with the denial of issue of Advance License vjde Letter dated24.022003, M/s. Pharmed Medrcare pvt. Ltd., Bangalore had preferred ttre appeat, inemain argument of the appellant is ihat the RJDGFffailed to appreciate that the fact thatthere was common director for some time in 1994-95 and 1996-g7 Mis. pharmed

A Y^u*-''

',. f .

o

chemicals Ltd., and M/s. pharmed Medicare pvt. Ltd, was of no legai consequence fordenying the appeilant the advance ticense which is apptied tor in ineieaili-o-irno ,or"partjcuiarly when the said.. commo,r-directoeMr-sandeeqAurora-h"'*""a."* to-os the- -director of the appellant company since 11,09.2000. That is *.. .rroii t*o vJars tnatthe said director was not a,part of the management of the appettint.ornp"n'vliurt",merely that the lE code of the appellant & M/s. pharmed ci-remicals Ltd- s'howing acommon address has no .legal consequence as both_ the entities are separaG, egallyincorporated bodies and that it is permissibre in law for incorporatea bo-iJrlJ'r,'r.u*

"registered office. Appellant has also contended that Advance ti""ns" .annoinJ r"rrseain its case under Rure 7 (1) (g) of Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rures, rsg3.anjlne oroeris.whotty ilregal & devoi'd.oi.any ryriG rhe aipeiiant is j private LrmitJ-io,np"nywhereas M/s. pharmed chemicars Lrd. is a puntii Limitea_comp..t. ih;i;il iiyeo toset aside the order dated 24.02.2003 passed by the Jt. DGFT.

4. The RA's comments on the appear were cailed for and the RA vide their retterdated 1.08.2003 reported that the Advance License applicatioh oi.pp.rr.nt n"".ielecteaon the grounds that M/s. pharmed chemicats Limited and Mls. prrli.meJ MeaLaie pvt.!1{._*^q" operating from the same address and had a common Director till 1994-9s and1996-97. lM/s. Pharmed chemicals Limited had obtained n"arrv rs Ad;.n." ii..*". tirr1995-96 but failed to fulfill the-export obligation. Mr. sandeep nroi.-*-r-"]-Io..onDirector to the management of .the appefilnt company as wel as for M/s. pharmedChemicals- Limited duiing. the period wfien trre prrinieo chemicals Limited had obtainednumber of Licenses and operated at the same address and also notn rravino cioseresembling names are sufficient itself to show the intent of misuse of tn. ,.n.r""o}, tn"appellant firm. The appeilant firm rs arso charged by the DRr una"i s"cnon rii or ilreCustoms Act.

1. -_ 9rygnrnity of personar Hearing (pH) was granted to the Appeilant on 1.02.2013but no one appeared and no new evidence in support of the appeai submiii;. ' '-6. .Accordingly, the case is examined with reference to submissions made in theappeal and avairabre records. RA, Bangalore had refused i.ir"- oi- nourn""Authorization to rhe apperant.under Rure 7 1ry 6i or roreijn ir".i" tn.gl[ii...)Rules, 1993, which piovides that the t-icensrni iirtnoritv m-ay refuse'ini"silrt ,f' licen€e if the appricauon for the ricense doe-s noi suostantiafiy conform to anyprovisions of the Rules. These provisions are quite wlde. and ilre nojuaicaling'iutnontvhas cleanv stated in its Lefter No. ozt2lto+btoooeornM i! iail;;6;'.24;;';.,based on the information received from DRr the matter retating 6 iutrril,n""i .l?J.rtobligation..in respect of 1J Advance Licenses issueJ to M/s. pharmed chemicars Ltd.,was pending_ investigation. one of the Directors was com,mon in the appeflantcompany and the said M/s..pharmed chemicars Ltd. up to zs.o's.rooo. M;;";;;;'ih"said two companies i.e. the appellant and M/s. pilarmeo chemicals Ltd., wereoperating from the same address at some point of time. Therefore; fi;-*;;;'.tr*greasons to support the view that the appeilant and the saia rvvs. Frrarm"j'ciiiiiir,Ltd., were rerared in some manner and having regardt to ."r-iirflirii".t"ri"iiptnobligation in 13 Advance Licenses issued to M/i; priarmed chemicars Ltd., invorving::::lTt9l€mount of government revenue, it m'ay not n" i" "ij"i'i. GL" #;".aovance ricenses to the aopellant. while rejecting the request or tne apper]aniioilrrl"of Advance Licenses, the Adjudicating nutfioflty-f]rrltlo noted th"l;;;;;;;;;;;;;.advance ricenses.is being rejected tiil the customs duty arong with interest thereon isrecovered from the said M/s. pharmed chemicals [ta., in- ,.".p""i-oi-fi";;;u"advance licenses taken by them. The appeilant has not .o*b to*"ra -*iiil"Jnu

6vw-=-

Ii

evidence regerding fulfillment of export obligation by the said M/s, Pharmed ChemicalsLtd. The Adjudicatlng Authority has correctly refused grant of further AdvanceLicenses to the appellant due to the strong possibility of its relation with anothercompany who has defaulted in fulfilling export obligation. The appellant's arguments iniheir appeal are not convincing. Therefore, there is no justifiable ground to interferewith the order in original passed by the Jt. DGFT, Bangalore.

7 . l, therefore, jn exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 1 5 of theForeign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, as amended, pass the foilowingorder:

Order

Dated: 15'n April, 201 3\f

/t \U *vt-utty--.-

( Mukesh Bhatnagar )Addl. Director General of Foreign Trade

O4OV to Addl, DGFT, Chennai for information and necessary action. r)

I "l' .,/tV

( Ramafland Meena )Dy. Director General of foreign Trade

1

F, No 1 1/31 3/2002-0itECA.t f U:D VThe appeal is dismissed.

M/s, Pharmed Medicare Pvt. Ltd.,Pharmed Garden,Whitefield Road,Bangalore- 560048.

nl,

by: mu*rnl*jr-dgftcom.nic.in/ecaorders/april2013.pdf · no. picgl2154742 dated 5.03.1997 for cif...

Documents

by: murnljr-dgftcom.nic.in/ecaorders/april2013.pdf · no. picgl2154742 dated 5.03.1997 for cif...