2009 (6) TMI 553 - AT - Customs

Demand- A show cause notice issued to the appellant on the ground that that they have not completed the export obligation due to stiff competition. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand on the basis of that the appellant have not produced any evidence. Held that- we are of the view that the impugned order is correct and legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-fulfillment of export obligation under DEEC Scheme.
2. Duty liability for alleged import of 10.932 MTs of sea material.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-fulfillment of Export Obligation under DEEC Scheme:
The appellant, M/s. Prapath Enterprises, held a DEEC advance license for duty-free import of 'frozen head-on shrimp' with an obligation to export processed 'block frozen headless shell-on shrimp' within 18 months. The appellant failed to submit the export obligation discharge certificate within the stipulated time and sought multiple extensions. Despite claiming that the export obligation was met through a sister concern, the adjudicating authority concluded that the appellant did not produce sufficient evidence to prove compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 51/2000. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant defaulted in satisfying the export obligation conditions and was thus liable to pay the duty forgone by the Revenue.

2. Duty Liability for Alleged Import of 10.932 MTs of Sea Material:
The appellant contended that only 3.5 MTs of sea material were imported, and the remaining quantity was procured locally. The adjudicating authority, however, found substantial evidence indicating that 10.932 MTs were imported. This included the weighment register from the processing plant, payment vouchers, and other documents showing the receipt and payment for 10.932 MTs of sea material. The appellant failed to provide any credible evidence of local procurement. The Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's findings, confirming the duty liability on the entire 10.932 MTs of imported sea material.

3. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties under Customs Act, 1962:
The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 15,40,322 under various provisions of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, due to mis-declaration of the imported quantity. Although the goods were not available for confiscation, a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 was imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Tribunal found that the appellant's mis-declaration of the quantity to avail benefits under the DEEC scheme justified the confiscation and penalties imposed. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision on confiscation and penalties.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to fulfill the export obligation, mis-declared the quantity of imported sea material, and was liable for the duty on 10.932 MTs. The confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties were found to be correct and in accordance with the law. The appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld in its entirety.