AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.No.,Tariff Item,Unit,Item Description,Export Policy,Nature of Restriction
154,44039918,M3,"(a) Red Sanders wood in any
form, whether raw, processed or
unprocessed except at (b)
below",Prohibited,"Not permitted to be
exported
,44079990,,,,
155,"32030000
38051010
92021000
92029000
92030010
92030090
92041000
92042000
92060000
92081000
92082000
92099200
92099300
92099900",Kg,"(b) Value added products of Red
Sanders wood such as Extracts,
Dyes, Musical from Red Sanders
wood procured from legal
sources",Restricted,"Exports permitted
under licence subject
to following
documentation
Application for export
licences …..
There was a plea raised by the appellant that the CTH 4407 9990 having undergone amendment the handcrafts are declared as restrictive goods.,,,,,
It may be stated that 2004-09 Export Policy when came to an end, the 2009-14 Export Policy emerged. Govt. Considered by DGFT Notification No.",,,,,
54 (CE-2013)/ 2009-2014 dated 03.12.2013 to cover value added products of red sanders including handcrafts made from red sander goods procured,,,,,
form legal source in column 4 against sl. No. 189 of Chapter 44 of schedule 2 of the ITC (HC) Classification of Export and import to be exportable,,,,,
items. The intention of the Legislature to cover handcraft was in the Export Policy of 2009-14 but not in 2004-09 Export Policy. In the present case,,,,,
export made by shipping bill No. 479 dated 25.08.2009 was covered by 2004-09 Policy. Therefore, appellant’s plea that the benefit of above",,,,,
notification dated 03.12.2013 is available to it is of no avail. Added to that the grant of Notification is only permissible only from the date of notification,,,,,
but not retrospectively as has been held by Apex Court in the case of Sunwin Technosolutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. of Central Excise, Ranchi",,,,,
reported in 2011 (21) STR 97 (SC),,,,,
Appellants plea that the goods seized and confiscated is redeemable under section 125 of the Customs Act 1962. There is no scope to grant option,,,,,
at this stage for redemption when the authority below had not granted such option taking a view in the light of aforesaid discussion. The citation relied,,,,,
by the appellant in the case of Commr. of Customs and Central Excise, Delhi-IV vs. Achiever International reported in 2012 (286) E.L.T. 180 (Del.)",,,,,
is of no avail when concealment of the goods attempted to be exported was found under the cover of sandal wood items and Revenue was defrauded.,,,,,
Therefore, any benefit granted to the appellant under Exim policy of 2009-14 shall be mockery. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed upholding the",,,,,
order of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals).,,,,,
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court30/04/2014].,,,,,