9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 388 - AT - CustomsRequirement to fulfil the export obligation within the time prescribed under the notification or the same is subject to the EODC Certificate issued by the DGFT - HELD THAT - The responsibility and liability of the importer is to fulfil the export obligations and submit the requisite documents to the concerned authorities and the issuance of the EODC was on the concerned authority. From the records, it is also found that the export obligations were fulfilled by the appellant and communication in that regard was made by him on 01.10.2011, which was much prior to the block period, i.e., 10.01.2013. Both the Adjudicating Authority and the Appellate Authority are aware that the authority issuing the EODC is DGFT and therefore while adjudicating the show cause notice which was issued by the customs authority, it was incumbent to have verified the status of the issuance of the EODC by the competent authority. In the present case the appellant had fulfilled the export obligations and submitted the requisite papers to DGFT for issuance of EODC well in time. However, the non co-operation of the two Departments, i.e. the Customs and the DGFT, the instant show cause notice and the impugned orders have resulted in denying the benefit to the appellant and imposing the liability to pay the custom duty, which prima-facie is unsustainable. The delay, if any, in issuance of the EODC was on the part of the DGFT and for which the appellant cannot be penalised. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is required to fulfill the export obligation within the time prescribed under the notification or subject to the EODC Certificate issued by the DGFT. 2. Whether the delay in issuance of the EODC by the DGFT can be attributed to the appellant. 3. Whether the appellant was denied natural justice due to non-receipt of the show cause notice. Summary: Issue 1: Export Obligation Fulfillment The appellant challenged the Order-in-appeal No. 315/2019, which confirmed the Adjudicating Authority's findings. The core issue was whether the appellant needed to fulfill the export obligation within the prescribed time or subject to the EODC Certificate issued by the DGFT. The Tribunal noted that the liability of the importer is to fulfill the export obligations and submit the requisite documents to the concerned authority. If there is any delay on the part of the authority in issuing the requisite certificate, the importer cannot be held liable, and no duty liability can be imposed on him. The appellant had fulfilled the export obligations and communicated this to the DGFT on 01.10.2011, well within the stipulated period. Issue 2: Delay in Issuance of EODC The Customs Department issued a show cause notice after the expiry of the eight-year period, which the appellant claimed not to have received. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the show cause notice due to the appellant's failure to submit requisite documents. However, the Tribunal found that the issuance of the EODC was the responsibility of the DGFT. The appellant had fulfilled the export obligations within the prescribed time, and the delay in issuing the EODC was on the part of the DGFT. The Tribunal referred to various decisions, including those by the Telangana High Court and the Tribunal itself, which supported the view that the delay by the issuing authority should not penalize the importer. Issue 3: Denial of Natural Justice The appellant argued that the principle of natural justice was violated as the show cause notice was not served on him. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider this contention and did not verify whether the show cause notice was actually served. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant had fulfilled the export obligations and submitted the requisite documents to the DGFT well in time. The delay in issuing the EODC was on the part of the DGFT, and the appellant should not be penalized for it. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had fulfilled the export obligations within the prescribed time, and the delay in issuing the EODC was on the part of the DGFT. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
|
