2000 (5) TMI 419 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Confirmation of duty demand against M/s. Tejas Exports and imposition of penalties.
2. Violation of provisions of Notification No. 204/92-Cus due to non-fulfillment of export obligations under the D.E.E.C. Scheme.
3. Lack of evidence supporting the claim for extension of export obligation period.
4. Arguments presented by the learned Advocate for the applicants regarding non-fulfillment of export obligations and lack of action against weavers.
5. Legal obligation of the importers to fulfill export obligations under Advance Licences.
6. Decision on the liability of M/s. Tejas Exports to pay duty on imported raw materials and penalties imposed.
7. Requirement for M/s. Tejas Exports to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe as a pre-condition for hearing appeals and stay of recovery of balance amount during appeal pendency.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves the confirmation of duty demand against M/s. Tejas Exports and the imposition of penalties on various individuals associated with the firm. The Commissioner of Customs confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,31,36,865.00 against the firm and imposed personal penalties on the Proprietor, father of the Proprietor, and other individuals.

2. The duty was confirmed against M/s. Tejas Exports due to the import of raw silk under Advance Licences without fulfilling export obligations under the D.E.E.C. Scheme. The adjudicating authority found the import to be in violation of Notification No. 204/92-Cus, leading to the imposition of Customs Duty.

3. The lack of evidence supporting the claim for an extension of the export obligation period was noted by the adjudicating authority, as the applicants failed to provide substantial proof to support their request.

4. The learned Advocate for the applicants admitted the non-fulfillment of export obligations, attributing it to the failure of weavers to return goods necessary for export. However, the Advocate could not provide information on actions taken against the weavers or any application for an extension of the export period.

5. It was emphasized that importers are legally obligated to fulfill export obligations under Advance Licences, regardless of reasons for non-compliance. Failure to export goods from the imported raw materials renders importers liable to pay duty, as confirmed by the Commissioner.

6. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's Advocate that the reasons for not fulfilling export obligations were immaterial. M/s. Tejas Exports was directed to deposit a specified amount within a set timeframe as a pre-condition for hearing appeals, with a stay on the recovery of the balance amount during the appeal pendency.

7. In light of the clear admission of non-fulfillment of export obligations by M/s. Tejas Exports, the Tribunal upheld the duty payment requirement and penalties imposed. The decision to require a deposit before hearing appeals aimed to ensure compliance and address the non-fulfillment of obligations.

← Previous Next →