2006 (9) TMI 43 - HC - Customs

Penalty Alleged that appellant import made against Advance Licence but can t fulfill the export obligation Violation of condition of licence sustainable Imposition of penalty warranted by adjudiucating authority.

Summary

Issues:
Impugning order of Additional Director General of Foreign Trade for non-fulfilment of export obligation and non-submission of relevant documents.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, which rejected the appeal due to non-fulfilment of export obligation and non-submission of DEEC books, shipping bills, and bank realization certificate. The petitioner had been imposed a fiscal penalty for failing to submit relevant documents as per the conditions of the license granted for import of brass scrap. The license required the export of brass artwares within a specified timeframe, which the petitioner failed to fulfill. Despite notices and opportunities for submission of evidence, the petitioner did not comply, leading to the imposition of the penalty.

Further Details:
The provision for appeal under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 mandates the deposit of the penalty amount for entertaining an appeal. The petitioner was informed of this requirement by the adjudicating authority and through a letter from the respondents. Despite being granted a hearing, the petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment and later admitted that no exports had been made, and the petitioners were in the process of paying customs duty with interest. The petitioner's claim that the import was made by a consultant without their knowledge was not substantiated with evidence and was not raised earlier in the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court found no illegality or procedural unreasonableness in the order of the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade. The lack of evidence of export fulfillment and the failure to produce required documents led to the dismissal of the writ petition. The judgment upheld the penalty imposed on the petitioner for non-compliance with the export obligations, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling license conditions in foreign trade transactions.