2003 (5) TMI 434 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Denial of benefit of notification 148/94 due to failure to submit Distribution Certificate from State Governments/District authorities.
2. Failure to provide necessary certificates for rectification despite specific directions.
3. Delay in submission of action taken report by the concerned Dy. Commissioner/Gr. I.
4. Allegation of penalizing appellants for departmental inaction.
5. Substantive compliance of the condition of notification No. 148/94.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order confirming the demand of Rs. 5,37,94,017/- due to the denial of benefit under notification 148/94 because importers failed to submit Distribution Certificates from State Governments/District authorities. The appellants argued that the goods imported for charitable purposes were not diverted for commercial use, and the only issue was the lack of signatures on some distribution certificates by the proper officer. The department was aware of this issue since 1995 but failed to provide clear instructions for rectification.

2. Despite specific directions in a Stay Order, the department did not provide the necessary certificates for rectification within the stipulated time frame. The appellants took the initiative to approach district authorities and rectify the copies of certificates themselves during the stay period. The appellants submitted the rectified certificates, but the concerned Dy. Commissioner failed to submit a report within the given time, leading to delays in the case's final disposal.

3. The concerned Dy. Commissioner/Gr. I failed to submit the action taken report by the specified deadline, even after reminders from the Commissioner (Appeals). The delay in submitting the report was highlighted as potentially causing a travesty of justice, especially considering the timeline of the imports in question (1993-1995).

4. The appellants argued that they made efforts to rectify the technical shortcomings in the certificates by approaching district authorities themselves, demonstrating their willingness to comply. They emphasized that penalizing them for departmental inaction, especially when they proactively rectified the certificates during the stay period, was unjustified. The appellants highlighted the lack of cooperation from the department in providing the necessary certificates for rectification.

5. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that there was substantive compliance with the conditions of notification No. 148/94, despite some certificates lacking proper signatures. The Commissioner referenced previous court rulings to support the decision to set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that technical lacunae should not be sufficient to deny the benefit of the notification to the appellants. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief granted, considering the circumstances and the actions taken by the appellants to rectify the certificates.