2025 (6) TMI 1853 - AT - Customs

100% EOU - Violation of the conditions of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 - evasion of Customs as well as Central Excise duty - demand of Customs Duty on re-imported rejected DG sets from M/s. SEZ Biotech Services Pvt. Limited - extended period of limitation - penalty - HELD THAT - The appellant applied to the jurisdictional Range Superintendent for issue of procurement certificate. After obtaining the said certificate on 04.12.2009 they filed Bill of Entry on 09.12.2009 with the Authorised Officer of Serum Biotech Pharma Park SEZ Pune claiming benefit of exemption N/N. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003. Here a question arises that when the appellant had disclosed full facts by way of enclosing the supplier s invoice alongwith Bill of Entry clearly indicating that rejected DG sets are being sent back to the supplier M/s. Sterling Generators Pvt. Limited yet the Authorised Officer of the SEZ allowed duty free import. It was incumbent upon him to examine whether or not conditions of the notification are satisfied in the case. Condition No. 15 of the said notification whose violation is being alleged should have been seen when the goods were re-imported by the appellant. The department woke up in January 2014 after more than four years from the date of import and issued show cause notice after CERA raised the objection. It is further found that in their ER-2 return filed for the month of February 2010 the appellant have indicated receipt of 3 DG sets against details of inputs and capital goods received without payment of duty . In the instant case there is no ground for invocation of extended period of limitation. Therefore without further going into merits of the case Customs duty confirmed by the lower authorities alongwith interest is held unsustainable. The penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 read with Section 114A of Customs Act 1962 and also the penalty on Shri Nagendra Singh Authorised Signatory of the appellant under Section 112 of the Act set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal revolve around the interpretation and applicability of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 and Notification No. 22/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 in the context of import, procurement, and re-import of Diesel Generating (DG) sets by a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). Specifically, the issues include:

(a) Whether the appellant violated the conditions of the exemption notification by importing/re-importing DG sets without undergoing authorized manufacturing or re-engineering activities as required;

(b) Whether the delay in re-importation of rejected DG sets beyond one year disqualifies the appellant from claiming exemption under the notification;

(c) The permissibility and procedural requirements for re-engineering activities by an EOU, including the need for Board of Approval (BOA) consent;

(d) The validity of the demand of Customs and Central Excise duties along with penalties and confiscation proposals;

(e) Whether the demand and penalties are barred by limitation;

(f) The correctness of imposing penalties on the appellant and its authorized signatory;

(g) The applicability of confiscation provisions under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act;

(h) The procedural propriety of issuance of show cause notice without prior reference to the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) in matters involving interpretation of policy or statutory provisions;

(i) The scope and effect of relevant judicial precedents concerning the above issues.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Conditions of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus and Import/Re-import of DG Sets

The legal framework involves Notification No. 52/2003-Cus which grants exemption from Customs duty to EOUs subject to certain conditions, including authorized manufacturing or re-engineering activities. The appellant was found to have imported/re-imported DG sets from SEZ and a 100% EOU without undergoing the authorized manufacturing process as per the Letter of Permission (LoP). The department alleged that merely mentioning "re-engineering" in the Letter of Intent (LoI) is insufficient without BOA approval.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had supplied DG sets to the SEZ unit, which rejected some sets. The appellant re-imported these rejected DG sets under a procurement certificate and claimed exemption under the notification. The appellant contended that the rejected DG sets were raw materials for re-engineering and re-assembly as per customer specifications, which should qualify for exemption.

The department's contention was that the re-import was beyond the prescribed one-year period stipulated in Serial No. 15 of the notification, thus disqualifying the appellant from exemption and attracting duty demand and penalties.

The Tribunal observed that the authorized officer of the SEZ allowed duty-free import despite the Bill of Entry and supplier's invoice clearly indicating the goods were rejected items being sent back. The Tribunal found fault with the authorized officer for not verifying compliance with the notification conditions at the time of re-import.

The appellant's ER-2 returns disclosed receipt of the DG sets without payment of duty, indicating transparency in records. The Tribunal held that no clandestine action or suppression was established.

2. Delay in Re-importation Beyond One Year and Its Effect

Serial No. 15 of the notification prescribes a one-year time limit for re-importation of goods. The department argued that the appellant's re-importation after more than one year breached this condition, thus invalidating the exemption.

The appellant countered by relying on Circular No. 60/99-Cus dated 10.09.1999, which does not prescribe any time limit for re-importation in similar contexts, and judicial precedents holding that procedural violations do not automatically attract duty demand if substantive compliance exists.

The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural nature of the time limit and the appellant's bona fide disclosure and conduct. It found that the department's delayed action (more than four years after re-import) and failure to act at the time of import undermined the demand's validity.

3. Requirement of Board of Approval (BOA) for Re-engineering Activities

The department emphasized that re-engineering by an EOU requires BOA approval as per policy, and mere mention in the LoI is insufficient.

The appellant demonstrated that the DG sets were re-engineered and re-assembled as per customer specifications after re-import, and similar treatment was accepted by the adjudicating authority for DG sets procured domestically from another 100% EOU.

The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the department's approach and implied that the re-engineering activity was carried out in compliance with policy, thereby not warranting duty demand on that ground.

4. Demand of Customs and Central Excise Duties, Penalties, and Confiscation

The adjudicating authority confirmed Customs duty demand of Rs. 1,03,72,366/- with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) read with Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Central Excise duty demand was dropped, and confiscation proposals for imported and domestically procured DG sets were also dropped. Penalty was imposed on the authorized signatory under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld these findings, rejecting the appellant's appeals.

The Tribunal, however, found the Customs duty demand and penalties unsustainable due to the reasons stated above, including procedural delay, transparency of records, and lack of violation of substantive conditions. It set aside the penalties on both the appellant and the authorized signatory.

5. Limitation

The appellant argued that the show cause notice issued in January 2014 was beyond the normal limitation period since re-importation occurred in December 2009. Reliance was placed on various judicial decisions establishing that demands based on statutory records cannot be raised beyond limitation.

The Tribunal agreed that the extended period of limitation was not invokable as no suppression or fraud was found. The appellant had maintained statutory records and disclosed the transactions in ER returns.

6. Applicability of Confiscation under Section 111(o) of Customs Act

The appellant contended that confiscation under Section 111(o) applies only when an exemption notification condition is violated by the importer. Since no such violation was established, confiscation was not permissible.

The Tribunal did not find grounds to uphold confiscation proposals.

7. Procedural Requirements for Issuance of Show Cause Notice

The appellant contended that the department should have referred the matter to CBEC before issuing the show cause notice, as per Board Circular No. 122/95-Cus dated 28.11.2005, especially in matters involving interpretation of policy or statutory provisions.

They further argued that show cause notice to EOUs is permissible only in cases of clandestine removal or disappearance of goods as per Board Circular 21/95-Cus dated 10.03.1995.

The Tribunal observed that the department's delayed action and failure to examine conditions at the time of import weakened the procedural propriety of the show cause notice issuance.

8. Penalty Under Section 114A of Customs Act

The appellant argued that penalty under Section 114A is not imposable where there is no suppression or willful misstatement, especially when the assessee acted on bona fide belief. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents including Tata Engineering & Locomotive vs. CC.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's conduct was bona fide, with full disclosure and no suppression, and accordingly set aside the penalties.

9. Treatment of Competing Arguments

The department relied on the prescribed one-year limit in the notification, the absence of BOA approval for re-engineering, and the delayed re-importation to justify duty demand and penalties. It also relied on case law supporting penalty imposition on authorized signatories involved in such transactions.

The appellant countered with evidence of bona fide transactions, procurement certificates, disclosure in statutory returns, judicial precedents limiting the scope of penalty and duty demand in procedural violations, and the absence of clandestine conduct.

The Tribunal favored the appellant's arguments based on procedural fairness, transparency, and the absence of substantive violation.

Significant Holdings:

"It was incumbent upon [the authorized officer] to examine whether or not conditions of the notification are satisfied in the case. Condition No. 15 of the said notification whose violation is being alleged, should have been seen when the goods were re-imported by the appellant."

"In the instant case, we feel that there is no ground for invocation of extended period of limitation. Therefore, without further going into merits of the case, Customs duty confirmed by the lower authorities alongwith interest is held unsustainable."

"We set-aside the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 read with Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and also the penalty on Shri Nagendra Singh, Authorised Signatory of the appellant under Section 112 of the Act."

The Tribunal established the principle that procedural lapses or delays in departmental action, absent suppression or fraud, cannot sustain demands or penalties under Customs law. It emphasized the requirement of proper examination of notification conditions at the time of import and the necessity of bona fide conduct by the assessee for exemption claims.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, quashing the Customs duty demand, interest, and penalties, and rejecting confiscation proposals, thereby affirming the importance of procedural fairness, limitation, and bona fide disclosure in Customs and Central Excise matters involving EOUs and re-imported goods.