2012 (5) TMI 68 - HC - Customs

Penalty imposed on the petitioner Company and also suspended the Importer Exporter Code petitioner claim to re-export the goods to foreign exporter revoking the suspension of the Importer Exporter Code as the agreement was entered before the levy of peanlty Held that - Execution of the bond by the petitioner Company in favour of the respondents - statement further secure the respondents by also restraining the petitioner Company from dealing in any manner with the said assets to the prejudice of the respondents, till, as aforesaid the question of penalty exists - direct the respondents to permit the petitioner Company to re-export the goods by treating the Importer Exporter Code valid for the said limited purpose and subject of course to compliance of all rules, regulations & laws in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty and suspension of Importer Exporter Code by Adjudicating Authority under SEZ Act.
2. Inability to pay sale consideration leading to re-export of goods.
3. Conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority for export/re-export of goods.
4. Dispute over alternative security and subsequent filing of petition.
5. Direction to furnish a bond for security of assets.
6. Dispute arising over NOC requirement from SBI for bond execution.
7. Ambiguity in Appellate Authority's order remanding the penalty imposition matter.
8. Measures to address concerns without requiring NOC from SBI.
9. Clarification on recovery of amounts due and restrictions on availing further financial facilities.
10. Direction for re-export of goods and ensuring compliance with rules and regulations.

Analysis:
1. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty and suspended the Importer Exporter Code of the petitioner Company under the SEZ Act. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Authority seeking to re-export goods due to inability to pay the sale consideration, leading to disputes over conditions imposed for re-export.

2. The Appellate Authority permitted export/re-export of goods subject to conditions, sparking a dispute over alternative security. A writ petition was filed challenging the conditions, resulting in directions to furnish a bond for security of assets, with subsequent disputes leading to further applications.

3. A key dispute arose over the requirement of an NOC from SBI for bond execution, with arguments presented regarding the bank's role in securing dues. Ambiguity existed in the Appellate Authority's order remanding the penalty matter, necessitating clarification on the liability of the petitioner Company.

4. To address concerns without an NOC from SBI, the court directed measures to safeguard recovery of amounts due, restrict further financial facilities, and prevent prejudicial acts affecting security interests. The court emphasized compliance with rules and regulations for re-export of goods.

5. The judgment aimed to facilitate the re-export of goods, protect the petitioner from liabilities, and ensure compliance with legal requirements. The court's directions sought to resolve disputes and prevent impediments in the re-export process, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal obligations.