2016 (8) TMI 142 - HC - Customs

Levy of penalty - imposing physical penalty on the petitioner to the tune of ₹ 15 lakhs on the ground that the petitioner has failed to fulfill the conditions of license granted by virtue of advance authorization No.0410078753 dated 21.02.2006 - Held that - the bonafides of the petitioner may be reconsidered by the first respondent, after inviting appropriate report from the third respondent in this regard. - matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Additional Director General of Foreign Trade - Physical penalty imposition - Failure to fulfill license conditions - Bank Guarantee encashment request - Benefit of amnesty under Public Notice No.22 - Bonafides of petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order imposing a physical penalty of ?15 lakhs for failing to fulfill license conditions granted by advance authorization. The petitioner requested encashment of a Bank Guarantee to clear duty liability and avail amnesty under Public Notice No.22, but the request was not granted due to missing appropriation. The Court noted the petitioner's timely request for encashment before the amnesty cut-off date and remanded the matter to consider the petitioner's bonafides.

The Court observed that the petitioner's Bank Guarantee encashment request was made well before the Public Notice No.22 amnesty cut-off date. The Court directed a reconsideration of the petitioner's bonafides by the appellate authority in light of the timely request for encashment and adjustment of duty liability. The Court emphasized the importance of timely actions in availing benefits under amnesty schemes and ordered a review of the petitioner's case by the first respondent.

The Court acknowledged the validity of the Public Notice No.22 amnesty cut-off date and the necessity for timely compliance with such directives. However, in this case, the petitioner's proactive steps in requesting Bank Guarantee encashment for duty payment demonstrated a genuine intent to fulfill obligations. The Court highlighted the significance of the petitioner's actions in attempting to comply with the requirements for amnesty benefits and directed a reassessment of the petitioner's bonafides by the first respondent.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the first respondent for a detailed examination of the petitioner's bonafides. The Court instructed the first respondent to seek a report from the third respondent and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. The decision emphasized the importance of considering the petitioner's actions in light of the relevant timelines and directives to determine eligibility for amnesty benefits.