2021 (4) TMI 358 - HC - Customs

Levy duty with interest and penalty - diversion of due free imported capital goods - stand of the petitioners is that during the relevant time Covid-19 pandemic was prevailing, the office was closed and the notice that was sent by registered post was received only on 20.07.2020 - HELD THAT - Some more time could have been granted to the petitioners herein. This Court has to take notice of the fact that the petitioners had paid the entire duty liability amount. Covid-19 was prevailing and the impugned orders have also been passed without hearing the petitioners herein. Even now the petitioners state that within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the petitioners would pay the interest amount as quantified by the authorities. This undertaking is recorded. The petitioners are directed to pay the interest amount as quantified by the respondents 1 to 3, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned order issued to companies for diversion of due free imported capital goods under EOU scheme during Covid-19 pandemic.
2. Petitioners' contention of insufficient time to respond to show cause notice and move settlement commission.
3. Respondents' argument of delay by petitioners in settling the issue.
4. Court's consideration of pandemic circumstances and lack of hearing before passing impugned orders.
5. Comparison to a previous judgment granting time to approach settlement commission.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to four writ petitions challenging a common impugned order issued to two companies and their directors for diverting due free imported capital goods under the EOU scheme during the Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioners claimed they received the show cause notice late due to office closure, paid the duty amount, and sought time to pay interest while intending to resolve the issue through the settlement commission. The respondents argued that the petitioners delayed proceedings, leading to the impugned orders. The Court acknowledged the pandemic situation, the duty payment, and the lack of a hearing before the orders were issued. The Court, while finding merit in the respondents' stance, believed the petitioners deserved more time. Noting the petitioners' commitment to pay the interest amount within six weeks, the Court quashed the impugned orders, directing the interest payment within the stipulated period and immediate movement to the settlement commission. Failure to comply would result in the automatic reinstatement of the impugned orders. The Court referenced a prior judgment granting time to approach the settlement commission, supporting its decision in the present case.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the judgment, including the circumstances of the case, arguments presented by both parties, the Court's considerations, and the final decision rendered.