2011 (10) TMI 276 - AT - Customs

Advance Licence was issued to the party on 29.9.2004 by the DGFT for export obligation to be fulfilled within 24 months. The goods were imported on concessional rate of duty however party failed to submit the evidence of fulfillment of export obligation within the specified period and even after a lapse of more than four years after that. Party had applied for & received EODC certificates from DGFT vide their letter dated 7/10.1.11. Both sides agree that the certificate was not before the Commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner for re-decision after verifying and examining the said certificate produced by the appellants.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Failure to submit evidence of fulfilment of export obligation within the specified period.
2. Dispute regarding the EODC certificate and its submission before the Commissioner.

Analysis:

1. The issue in the appeal was related to the failure of the party to submit evidence of fulfilment of export obligation within the specified period, as highlighted by the Commissioner. The Advance Licence issued required the export obligation to be fulfilled within 24 months, with a deadline for submission of the EODC by a specific date. The party failed to provide the necessary evidence even after a considerable lapse of time. The Commissioner noted the party's non-compliance with the obligation and absence during the department's hearing. The duty to produce the EODC or pay the differential duty was emphasized by the Commissioner.

2. The advocate for the appellants contended that there was no dispute regarding the fulfilment of the export obligation. They had applied for the EODC certificate to the DGFT even before the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The certificate was subsequently issued by the DGFT but was not presented before the Commissioner during the proceedings. In light of this submission, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Commissioner for re-decision after verifying and examining the EODC certificate provided by the appellants.

3. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and submissions from both sides, concluded that the appeal would be disposed of by remanding the matter for further examination based on the newly presented EODC certificate. The decision to set aside the previous order and seek re-decision from the Commissioner was made to ensure a fair assessment of the situation based on the updated information provided by the appellants. The stay application and appeal were both disposed of in this manner, with the Tribunal pronouncing its decision in the open court.