2011 (8) TMI 787 - HC - Customs

Penalty - Advance Licensing - Notification No. 30/1997, dated 1-4-1997 - Non fulfilment of export obligation - The goods valued at Rs. 6,11,767.55/- were confiscated under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 60,000 - Tribunal held due to the recession in the industry and also labour problem, the assessee was not in a position to fulfil the export obligation in time - Public Notice dated 7-11-2002, the assessee was entitled to seek extension of export obligation period of six months from the date of Public Notice for fulfilment of certain conditions - assessee has fulfilled the export obligation though belatedly - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order setting aside penalty imposed on assessee for non-compliance with export obligation under Advance Licensing Scheme.

Detailed Analysis:
The case involved an appeal filed by the revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the assessee for failing to fulfill the export obligation under the Advance Licensing Scheme. The assessee had imported goods duty-free under Notification No. 30/1997 but could not meet the export obligation within the stipulated time, leading to initiation of proceedings and imposition of penalties by the Adjudicating Authority. The Tribunal, considering factors like industry recession and labor issues, found that the assessee eventually fulfilled the export obligation, albeit belatedly. It noted that the assessee could have sought an extension for fulfilling the obligation as per a Public Notice, and the entire duty foregone had been demanded along with a penalty. The Tribunal concluded that imposing duty, fine, and penalty in this case was unwarranted, leading to the order being set aside.

The High Court, upon hearing arguments from the appellant's counsel, upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding it just and proper. It noted that the assessee had eventually met the export obligation, did not appeal against the confiscation order, and had the opportunity to seek an extension for fulfilling the obligation as per the Public Notice. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's analysis, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal, and thus dismissed the appeal. The Court emphasized that if the assessee had sought an extension as per the Public Notice, the entire proceedings could have been avoided, indicating that the Tribunal's intervention in the Adjudicating Authority's order was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.