2015 (12) TMI 1189 - AT - Customs

EPCG license - Non-fulfillment of export obligations for the second block period - extension of time from the JDFT - Held that - In spite of the efforts made by the appellant, the period does not stand extended by the JDFT authorities. They have also observed that they failed to note the EPCG licence No. on export documents and failed to furnish details of exports done during the block period within 30 days of completion of the block period. They did file a statement of exports to JDFT showing details of the shipping bills without EPCG licence No. The Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that though the lapse of non-mentioning of EPCG is a condonable lapse but the same is required to be condoned after submission of certain documents and verification of the same. As the appellants have not produced any evidence for following the procedure in the case, he has not accepted the appellant s stand and has held that they have failed to fulfill the export obligations and also did not get any extension from the licencing authorities - In fact till date there is nothing on record, even after a lapse of a period of about ten years, the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that the time for export was extended by JDFT authorities. As such we find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Non-fulfillment of export obligations under EPCG licence, failure to obtain extension of time from JDFT authorities, failure to provide necessary export documentation, rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the non-fulfillment of export obligations for the second block period by the appellants who imported capital goods under an EPCG licence. The appellants were required to export computers and related systems worth &8377; 9.80 crores within a specified period. The lower authorities found that the appellants did not obtain an extension of time from the JDFT authorities for fulfilling their export obligations. Additionally, they failed to mention the EPCG licence number on export documents and did not provide details of exports within the required timeframe.

The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that while the failure to mention the EPCG licence number was condonable, the appellants needed to follow a specific procedure for condonation, which they failed to do. The appellants did not provide any evidence to show that they followed the necessary procedure or obtained an extension of time from the licensing authorities. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants had indeed failed to fulfill their export obligations and did not receive any extension from the authorities.

The appellants did not contest the fact that they obtained an extension subsequently from the JDFT authorities. Despite a considerable period passing since the alleged extension was sought, there was no evidence produced by the appellants to support their claim. The tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently rejected the appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the decision of the lower authorities, emphasizing the importance of complying with export obligations under the EPCG licence and the necessity of obtaining proper extensions when required. The failure of the appellants to provide essential documentation and evidence ultimately led to the rejection of their appeal.