2017 (9) TMI 1570 - AT - Customs

Advance License Scheme - non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) - Held that - Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of GLS Film Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (12) TMI 723 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has held that matter needs to be remanded awaiting the decision of DGFT and produce the copy of the same - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to await decision of the DGFT authorities and decide the matter thereof - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of customs duty foregone due to non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) when seeking advance license.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal raised a common question of law regarding the confirmation of demand of customs duty foregone by the Revenue due to the appellants not producing the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) when seeking advance license. Both lower authorities held that in the absence of EODC, the demand should be confirmed with interest and penalties imposed. The appellant had corresponded with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for the EODC certificate, but it was not issued. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision by a Division Bench in a similar case, where it was held that the matter should be remanded pending the decision of DGFT and production of the certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that the denial of benefits and confirmation of duty when the certificate is not issued by DGFT is unjustified. The Tribunal expressed displeasure at the delay caused by DGFT in issuing necessary certificates, leading to unnecessary litigation and expenses. In line with the previous decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to await the decision of DGFT authorities and decide accordingly.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that the denial of benefits and confirmation of duty when the EODC certificate is not issued by DGFT is unjustified. The Tribunal highlighted the efforts made by the appellants to procure the certificate and the delay caused by DGFT in issuing it. The Tribunal emphasized the need to avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses by ensuring timely issuance of necessary certificates. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority was in line with the previous decision by the Division Bench, which set a precedent for similar cases where DGFT delays in issuing certificates. The Tribunal directed the Registry to send a copy of the order to DGFT authorities for further action, emphasizing the importance of timely decision-making by DGFT to avoid unnecessary obstacles in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of timely issuance of necessary certificates by DGFT to avoid unjust denial of benefits and unnecessary litigation. The decision to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority was based on the precedent set by a previous Division Bench decision, emphasizing the need for DGFT to act promptly in issuing certificates to prevent delays and additional legal complexities. The Tribunal's directive to send a copy of the order to DGFT authorities underscored the significance of ensuring efficient and effective administrative processes to facilitate smoother legal proceedings and avoid unnecessary expenses.