9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 785 - AT - CustomsEPCG Scheme - Failure to submit the evidence of fulfilment of Export Obligations as per notification - failure to submit Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) - HELD THAT - The delay in issuance of EODC has been considered in various decisions and the same has been held to be in favour of the importer, where the delay is on the part of the DGFT - In the present case, it is found that the appellant had been requesting the DGFT to grant him extension of two years to fulfil the 100% Export Obligations. Under the notification, the Authorities are empowered to grant extension of time, as can be inferred from the provisions of Clause 4 of the Notification. The application made by the appellant seeking extension of time by two years, was maintainable and should have been granted by the Licensing Authority. As per the documents produced by the appellant, it is found that he had fulfilled the balance Export Obligations vide Shipping Bill No.8467213 dated 19.03.2015 and though it appears that there have been several communications in that regard between the appellant and the DGFT, EODC was finally issued on 16.02.2016. No doubt, that the EODC has been issued after much delay, however, the same was issued prior to the passing of the order-in-original passed by the Adjudicating Authority on 26.02.2016 and much before the impugned order on 19.11.2019. The fact that the EODC has been issued showing complete fulfilment of 100% Export Obligation, the Appellate Authority was required to consider the same and in the light of the various decisions of the High Court as well as of this Tribunal, ought to have granted the necessary relief. Since the appellant has complied with the conditions of fulfilling 100% export obligation and which stands approved as per the EODC issued by DGFT, no fruitful purpose will be served in denying the benefit to the appellant. Once EODC is issued by DGFT, it cannot be said that the appellant had violated any of the conditions of the Notification. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after taking into consideration the EODC issued by the Additional Director, DGFT on 16.02.2016 - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues involved:
The case involves the challenge to an Order-in-Appeal affirming an Order-in-Original related to the import of capital goods under an EPCG license, specifically concerning the fulfillment of Export Obligations as per a customs notification. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Importer's Obligation to Fulfill Export Obligations The appellant imported capital goods under an EPCG license subject to fulfilling Export Obligations as per the customs notification. The appellant was required to produce evidence of fulfilling Export Obligations within specified time frames, failing which duties were recoverable along with interest. Issue 2: Adjudication and Penalties A show cause notice was issued to the appellant for failing to submit evidence of Export Obligations. The Order-in-Original confirmed duty payment for non-compliance, along with penalties under the Customs Act. The appellant challenged the order, citing lack of communication from the DGFT. Issue 3: Delay in Issuance of EODC The delay in issuing the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) by the DGFT was a key contention. The appellant sought an extension to fulfill Export Obligations, which was eventually granted. The EODC confirming 100% fulfillment was issued after the Order-in-Original but before the impugned order. Issue 4: Appellate Tribunal's Finding The Tribunal noted that the delay in issuing the EODC was not attributable to the appellant. Referring to relevant provisions and past decisions, the Tribunal held that once EODC is issued showing compliance, the appellant cannot be deemed to have violated the conditions of the notification. Conclusion: Considering the EODC confirming full compliance with Export Obligations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh determination. The Tribunal emphasized that denial of benefits to the appellant after fulfilling obligations would serve no purpose. Separate Judgment: The judgment was delivered by MS. BINU TAMTA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MS. HEMAMBIKA R. PRIYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) on 15th January, 2024.
|
