9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1033 - AT - CustomsEnforcement of bond/bank guarantee for recovery with further order to confiscate capital goods imported under EPCG Authorization - Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Penalty - HELD THAT - It is found from the EODC dated 1.2.2019 granted by the Competent Authority is sufficient proof that the appellant have discharged their export obligation in respect of EPCG licence No. 1330001563 dated 14.03.2007. It is further found that the Court below have in a callous manner ignored the written submissions and evidence placed before it, which is highly undesirable and unbecoming of a court. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
The issue involved in this appeal is whether the impugned order-in-appeal is justified confirming enforcement of bond/bank guarantee for recovery of Rs. 9,18,589/- with further order to confiscate capital goods imported under EPCG Authorization no. 1330001563 dated 14.03.2007, u/s 111(o) with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs.5 lakhs. Further, penalty was imposed u/s 112 of Rs.2 lakhs. Details of the Judgment: The appellant had imported and cleared capital goods under EPCG Licence No. 1330001563 dated 14.03.2017 at a concessional rate of customs duty of 5%, under Notification No. 97/2004-Cus dated 17.09.2004, as amended, subject to the condition that the appellant fulfills Export Obligation as prescribed. The appellant failed to produce Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) before the proper officer within the prescribed time limit, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent enforcement of bond/bank guarantee for recovery of Rs. 9,18,589/- u/s 143(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, a redemption fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- was imposed u/s 125 and a penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s 112 of the Act. The appellant, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted evidence including an EODC certificate dated 01.02.2019, indicating fulfillment of export obligation. However, the appeal was dismissed by a non-speaking order, prompting the appellant to challenge the decision on the grounds of the order being cryptic and non-speaking, with failure to consider the evidence presented. Upon review, it was found that the EODC dated 1.2.2019 provided sufficient proof of the appellant fulfilling their export obligation. The Court below was criticized for ignoring the written submissions and evidence, leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order being set aside. The appellant was granted consequential benefits in accordance with the law.
|
