2001 (11) TMI 185 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Failure to fulfill export obligation under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme.
2. Allegations of non-compliance with EPCG licences and Customs Notifications.
3. Confiscation of capital goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Appropriation and adjustment of deposited amounts against duty demand.
5. Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 1: Failure to fulfill export obligation under the EPCG Scheme:
The appellants, M/s. Mechano Paper Machines Ltd., imported goods under the EPCG Scheme but failed to meet their export obligations as stipulated in the EPCG licences. The proceedings were initiated against them for not fulfilling the export obligations within the specified time frame, leading to a demand for duty payment and potential confiscation of the imported capital goods.

Issue 2: Allegations of non-compliance with EPCG licences and Customs Notifications:
The Assistant Commissioner alleged that the appellants did not export products as required by the EPCG licences and Customs Notifications within the validity period. The appellants were accused of not utilizing the imported capital goods in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licences and failing to fulfill the export obligations, contravening the provisions of the EPCG licences and Customs Notifications.

Issue 3: Confiscation of capital goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The appellants were called upon to show cause as to why the capital goods imported under the EPCG Scheme should not be liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to their failure to fulfill the export obligations and comply with the terms of the EPCG licences and Customs Notifications.

Issue 4: Appropriation and adjustment of deposited amounts against duty demand:
The Commissioner of Customs confirmed the duty demands on the appellants and ordered the appropriation of deposited amounts against these demands. The appellants contested the duty amounts, stating that they had already paid them before the show cause notice was issued. The Commissioner's order regarding the appropriation of the deposited amounts was upheld, except for one specific amount that required further consideration.

Issue 5: Imposition of penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962:
No penal action was taken against the party by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellants requested a remand for de novo consideration due to ongoing processes with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) regarding the extension of the export obligation period. The Tribunal upheld the appropriation of one duty amount but remanded the matter related to another duty demand back to the Commissioner for reconsideration based on any extension granted by the DGFT.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld one duty demand appropriation, rejected one appeal, and remanded another duty demand issue back to the Commissioner for further consideration based on potential extensions granted by the DGFT.