2013 (10) TMI 900 - HC - Customs

Failure to satisfy export obligation - Duty demand - Goods were imported under Export Promotion of Capital Goods Licence (EPCG) scheme - Exemption from Customs duty on import of plant and machinery - Held that - Tribunal directed petitioner to deposit 50% of disputed amount - The interim order passed by the second respondent by way of will stand varied and the petitioner will have the benefit of the interim stay, on condition that the petitioner satisfies 25% of the disputed amount within one month - Stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Granting of interim stay in respect of disputed liability for exemption from Customs duty on import of plant and machinery.
2. Adverse circumstances leading to failure to satisfy export obligation specified.
3. Appeal against order to recover dues in respect of import.
4. Petitioner's entitlement to total exemption under Exts.P1 to P3 notifications.
5. Conditions set out in the notifications not satisfied by the petitioner at the time of import.
6. Direction to appellate authority to consider and pass final orders on the appeal within three months.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner challenged the Ext.P7 order granting interim stay in relation to a disputed liability for exemption from Customs duty on the import of plant and machinery. The petitioner claimed entitlement to exemption based on being a World Bank funded unit but failed to claim the benefit initially, leading to seeking relief against an Export Promotion of Capital Goods Licence. The petitioner could not meet the export obligation due to adverse market circumstances, resulting in the respondents taking steps to recover dues, culminating in the Ext.P4 order. The appellate authority passed the impugned order (Ext.P7) directing the petitioner to satisfy 50% of the disputed amount, causing the petitioner to approach the court for immediate intervention.

2. The petitioner contended that as per Exts.P1 to P3 notifications, total exemption was warranted, forming the subject matter of the appeal. The petitioner highlighted their dire financial situation, emphasizing the need for urgent relief.

3. The court heard the standing counsel's submissions, emphasizing that the petitioner did not meet the conditions stipulated in the notifications at the time of import or presently. The appellate authority's observations in Ext.P7 order reiterated the petitioner's failure to satisfy the conditions for exemption.

4. The court refrained from delving into the case's merits, deferring the consideration to the appellate authority. A direction was issued for the second respondent to adjudicate and issue final orders on the appeal within three months. The interim order of 50% satisfaction of the disputed amount was modified to 25% within one month, granting the petitioner the benefit of interim stay.

5. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the aforementioned directions, allowing the appellate authority to address the petitioner's claim for exemption comprehensively within the specified timeframe.