Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 283 - AT - CustomsExport against advance licenses - Shipping bills which were filed in connection with the exports were drawback shipping bills instead of DEEC shipping bills - Notification No.204/92-Cus. dated 19.5.1992 - Held that - Though the shipping bills were filed as drawback shipping bills, the assessee did not press any claim of drawback and no drawback was sanctioned either. Only their claim under DEEC scheme was pursued. Accordingly, the assessee exported their final products and realized proceeds in foreign exchange. They could not produce proof of this in the form of EODCs because the customs authorities did not make the necessary entries in the DEEC book citing technical reasons. It is not the case of the department that the assessee was fraudulently claiming DEEC benefit exchange.Therefore to re-quantify the demand of duty licence wise proportionate to shortfall of exports remand back to Commissioner.
Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under Notification No.204/92-Cus. dated 19.5.1992. 2. Demand of customs duty, interest, and penalty under the Customs Act. 3. Appropriation of payment and imposition of penalties. 4. Discharge of export obligation under the DEEC scheme. 5. Failure to produce Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs). 6. Burden of proof on the assessee. 7. Discrepancy in filing shipping bills as drawback shipping bills. 8. Justification for duty-free clearance of imported goods. 9. Re-quantification of duty and setting aside of penalties. Analysis: 1. The case involved the denial of benefits under Notification No.204/92-Cus. dated 19.5.1992, concerning exports made by M/s Aluminium Industries Limited (the assessee) during 1992-94. The Commissioner of Customs issued a show-cause notice proposing to deny benefits and demanding customs duty, interest, and penalties under the Customs Act. 2. The appellants argued that they had discharged a major part of their export obligation under the DEEC scheme, with a shortfall remaining. They contended that the benefit should be allowed based on the extent of export obligation discharged and objected to the imposition of penalties. 3. The Additional Commissioner maintained the findings in the impugned order, highlighting the failure of the assessee to produce Export Obligation Discharge Certificates (EODCs) despite directions. The demand of duty was supported due to the absence of EODCs. 4. The Tribunal observed that complete justice was not rendered to the assessee in the initial adjudication. The burden of proof was incorrectly placed on the assessee, who could not obtain EODCs due to the customs authorities' inaction in making necessary entries in the DEEC book. 5. Notwithstanding the filing of shipping bills as drawback shipping bills, the assessee pursued claims under the DEEC scheme, exporting products and realizing proceeds in foreign exchange. The inability to produce EODCs was attributed to technical reasons and not fraudulent intent. 6. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to re-quantify the duty license-wise proportionate to the shortfall of exports, emphasizing the need for fair treatment and timely payment of re-quantified duty. The penalties imposed on the assessee and their Senior Manager were set aside. 7. Ultimately, Appeal No.C/602/2008 was allowed, and Appeal No.C/601/2008 was disposed of accordingly, with the re-quantification of duty and the setting aside of penalties as the key outcomes of the judgment.
|