2001 (6) TMI 269 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for dispensing with pre-deposit of duty amount and personal penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant sought to dispense with the pre-deposit of duty amount and personal penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, represented by Ms. Sujata Grover, explained that they had imported 'brass scrap' under the Advance Licence Scheme but failed to fulfill the export obligation due to the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seizing their license during a raid. Despite multiple requests to the DRI for the return of the license to fulfill the obligation, no response was received. The appellant subsequently exported the final product under another license and approached the Director-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for the clubbing of the two licenses, which was still pending as of the hearing. The appellant argued that since the export obligation was fulfilled and the license clubbing issue was pending, requiring them to deposit the duty and penalties would cause undue hardship. Additionally, the appellant mentioned that the import was done by her deceased husband, and the firm had been closed, making it challenging to resolve the matter.

Analysis:
On the other hand, Shri M.M. Dubey, representing the Revenue, contended that the export obligation had not been met, and there were no orders from the DGFT regarding the license clubbing. He emphasized that the current contravention should be the focus, and the pending clubbing issue should not impact the decision. The Adjudicating Authority had upheld the duty and penalty demand based on the unfulfilled export obligation.

Analysis:
After considering the arguments from both parties, the Tribunal observed that the impugned order was based on the non-fulfillment of the export obligation under the Advance Licence Scheme. However, it was noted that the appellants had made efforts to retrieve the license from the DRI to meet the obligation, with no response received. The order also acknowledged that the request for clubbing the licenses was pending with the DGFT, and no final decision had been made. The Tribunal concluded that if the clubbing request was accepted, no duty liability would remain for the appellants. Taking into account this factor and the subsequent export made under a different license, against which no prior importation occurred, the Tribunal allowed the Stay Petition unconditionally, indicating a favorable decision for the appellant.