2019 (3) TMI 716 - AT - Customs

Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel - EPCG Scheme - non-fulfillment of export obligation - concessional rate of duty as per N/N. 97/2004 dated 17.9.2004 - Held that - Admittedly appellants have imported the capital goods at concessional rate of duty under EPCG license as per N/N. 97/2004 Cus. and saved the duty amount of ₹ 4,90,185/-. Further, as per the said Notification, appellant was required to discharge the export obligation but they have failed to comply with the conditions of the Notification as a result of which both the authorities have confirmed the demand and short-levy amounting to ₹ 4,14,274/- along with applicable interest. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case because the appellant have admittedly failed to discharge the export obligation as required under the said Notification. In the absence of not discharging the export obligation, the Commissioner (A) has rightly confirmed the demand - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
- Appeal against rejection of appeals by Commissioner (A) and upholding Orders-in-Original
- Failure to produce evidence of export obligation fulfillment
- Applicability of Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel
- Discharge of export obligation under EPCG license
- Confirmation of demand and short levy amount
- Upholding of impugned orders by dismissing all four appeals

The judgment involves four appeals filed against rejection and upholding of Orders-in-Original by the Commissioner (A) dated 29.8.2016. All appeals share an identical issue, leading to a common disposal. The appeals concern the failure to produce evidence of export obligation fulfillment after importing capital goods at a concessional rate of duty under an EPCG license. The appellant imported goods under Bill of Entry No.182188 dated 19.7.2006 and failed to demonstrate compliance with the export obligation, resulting in a short levy of duty confirmed by the Original Authority. The appellant argued for the applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel due to challenges in fulfilling the obligation beyond their control, such as delayed funds from the Ministry of Food Processing Industries.

The appellant contended that the impugned orders lacked legal sustainability as they were passed without proper consideration of facts and evidence. The appellant, a Kerala Government Undertaking in meat product manufacturing, imported a meat processing machine under an EPCG license for exporting quality products. However, due to factors beyond their control, such as delayed funds, they could not meet the export obligation. The appellant invoked the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel to prevent punitive action, arguing that the respondent should be restrained from penalizing them for non-compliance.

The respondent defended the impugned orders, highlighting the appellant's failure to fulfill the export obligation within the stipulated period and the absence of an extension from the DGFT for meeting the obligation deadline. The respondent disputed the applicability of the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel in this case. After hearing both parties and reviewing the record, the judge found that the appellants indeed imported goods at a concessional duty rate under the EPCG license but failed to meet the export obligation specified in the Notification. Consequently, the demand and short levy of &8377; 4,14,274/- along with interest were confirmed by both authorities.

The judge concluded that the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel did not apply in this scenario since the appellant failed to discharge the export obligation as mandated by the Notification. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) rightfully upheld the demand, and the judge found no flaws in the impugned orders. Consequently, all four appeals were dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower authorities. The operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 12/03/2019.

← Previous Next →