9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 94 - AT - CustomsBenefit of N/N. 93/2004-Cus dated 10.09.2004 - the appellant failed to produce the necessary EODC from the office of DGFT, within the stipulated time - Held that - The customs duty has been paid in terms of direction given by the licensing authority and the same has been taken note of by the licensing authority to close the matter. In such situation, we find no further issue remains to be decided. The fulfillment of the licensing condition or other related matter cannot be again re-examined as the same has been settled by the competent authority - the impugned order cannot be varied as there is no reason for doing so - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
- Non-production of Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from DGFT - Demand of customs duty forgone and penalty imposition - Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, New Delhi Analysis: Issue 1: Non-production of EODC from DGFT The appellant imported raw materials under Advance Authorization claiming exemption under Notification 93/2004-Cus. The condition for exemption required fulfilling export obligation and other conditions as per the notification and license issued by DGFT. The appellant failed to produce the EODC from DGFT within the stipulated time. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the violation of the notification conditions and quantified the customs duty payable by the appellant as ?3.53 Lakhs. The appellant did not disclose to the Commissioner the DGFT's direction to pay customs duty and the subsequent withdrawal of that direction. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's non-disclosure was unjustified, as the licensing authority had directed the payment of customs duty as per the license conditions, which the appellant complied with. The Tribunal held that since the matter had been settled by the competent authority (DGFT), there was no further issue to be decided regarding the non-payment of customs duty. Issue 2: Demand of customs duty forgone and penalty imposition The original authority confirmed a customs duty liability of ?18,20,000 on the appellant, along with a penalty of ?1,50,000. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the duty demand to ?3.53 lakhs, which was the amount utilized by the appellant under the Advance Authorization. The Commissioner upheld the penalty imposed. The Tribunal observed that the entire case revolved around compliance with the license conditions issued by DGFT and the payment of customs duty as directed by the licensing authority. Since the appellant had paid the duty as per the DGFT's direction, and the matter was closed by the licensing authority after acknowledging the payment, the Tribunal found no reason to vary the impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Issue 3: Appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, New Delhi The appellant contended that they had paid the amount of ?3.53 Lakhs themselves and contested their liability. However, the Tribunal noted that the DGFT's directions to pay customs duty and the withdrawal of those directions occurred before the Commissioner's order. The appellant did not bring these proceedings before the DGFT to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was solely based on the non-production of EODC, and there was no further examination needed in the present appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing that the appellant's compliance with the licensing conditions and payment of customs duty as directed by DGFT settled the matter, leaving no grounds for varying the impugned order.
|
