2016 (8) TMI 480 - AT - Customs

Demand of tax, interest and penalty - clearance under EPCG scheme - export obligation to be fulfilled - Held that - appellant failed to fulfill export obligations. When case called, no representation on behalf of the appellant nor was there any request for adjournment. Case decided on merits - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Customs duty demand confirmation, Failure to produce evidence of export obligation fulfillment, Dismissal of appeal

The judgment deals with an appeal filed against an Order-in-Appeal that upheld an Order-in-Original confirming a customs duty demand of ?3,45,435 along with interest and penalties. The appellant had imported and cleared goods under an EPCG license, which required fulfilling export obligations and other prescribed conditions. The appellant was obligated to provide evidence of fulfilling the export obligation within 30 days after the obligation period expired on 17.01.2007. However, the appellant failed to produce the required evidence before the Customs authorities or obtain an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the licensing authority. Consequently, the lower adjudicating authorities confirmed the demand, interest, and penalty.

During the hearing, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant, nor was there any request for an adjournment. Therefore, the case was decided on its merits. The Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the appellant's failure to comply with the export obligation requirements.

Upon reviewing the impugned order and appeal papers, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not submit any evidence of fulfilling export obligations directly to the Asst. Commissioner or obtain the EODC within the specified period. Despite the deadline passing without submission, the appellant did not provide the necessary evidence to the Commissioner (Appeals) who issued the order on 19.01.2010. Even before the CESTAT, the appellant failed to produce the required evidence or EODC. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's appeal and dismissed it accordingly.

In conclusion, the judgment affirms the lower authorities' decision to confirm the customs duty demand, interest, and penalties due to the appellant's failure to meet the export obligation requirements and provide the necessary evidence within the stipulated timeframe. The dismissal of the appeal underscores the importance of compliance with licensing conditions and timely submission of required documentation in customs matters.