9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ayment of duty of customs subject to certain conditions. Condition No. (ii) was that the importer, at the time of clearance of the goods, should execute a bond with such surety or security and in such form and for such sum as might be specified by the Assistant Collector of Customs binding himself to pay, on demand, an amount equal to the duty leviable on the imported materials but for the exemption, in respect of which the conditions specified in this notification had not been complied with, together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of clearance of the goods. The appellants had executed such bond. Condition No. (v) was that the export obligation in relation to the imported raw material should be discharged to the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advance Licence issued by the licensing authority under the DEEC scheme. In terms of the relevant Exim Policy, duty-free clearance of the goods was permissible under Notification No. 80/95 ibid. Condition No. (ii) was complied with by the appellants by executing a bond as prescribed by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner at the time of clearance of the goods and subsequently by paying duty on the goods with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum in the wake of non-fulfillment of condition (v). It was under condition (v) that the importer was required to discharge export obligation in relation to the raw material imported by them and cleared duty-free under the Notification. They failed to discharge the post-importation conditio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f confiscation of the goods as also to impose penalty on the importer. These proposals were upheld by the Commissioner, who imposed a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. The Commissioner s order was taken in appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal, following the ratio of its earlier decision in Maruti Udyog (supra), held that the importer had no penal liability under Section 112 of the Customs Act. In similar facts and circumstances, a learned Single Member of the Tribunal followed Maruti Udyog (supra) and exonerated an importer, who had imported raw material under a Quantity-Based Advance Licence and cleared the same duty-free in terms of Notification No. 82/95-Cus. but could not fulfil the export obligation, from penal liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty in the event of violation of any exemption condition. They complied with condition (ii) by discharging their liability under the bond. The cause of action for such compliance was the breach of condition (v). When condition (ii) was complied with, its cause of action did not survive. This would mean that, where the party complied with condition (ii), they cannot be mulcted with penalty on the ground that breach of condition (v) rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) and the importer liable for penalty under Section 112(a). A view to this effect was taken by this Tribunal in the cases cited by ld. Counsel. 6. In the result, the impugned order gets set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
