TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The said licence was issued for CIF value of US Dollars 1,97,537 for a period of 24 months to import the above said machines. The condition imposed in the licence is that the petitioner shall export greeting cards, and paper stickers for a value of US Dollars 7,90,148, i.e., fours times the CIF value of the goods permitted to be imported in terms of the above licence within a period of five years. 3. It was further submitted that the goods covered by the above licence are eligible to be imported at concessional rate of customs duty in terms of Customs Notification No. 160/1992, dated April 20, 1992. As per the said notification, the duty leviable is only 15 per cent. subject to the condition that the petitioner-firm exports the goods as stipulated in the licence issued to them. The petitioner has to execute a bank guarantee with the first respondent for availing of concessional duty. Accordingly, the petitioner through Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Tirupur executed a bank guarantee in favour of the first respondent. In terms of the bank guarantee execjted by the petitioner-firm in favour of the first respondent, the petitioner-firm undertook to pay duty, which is leviable on the goods im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is Rs. 17,82,439. Since the bank guarantee has been enforced and an amount of Rs. 18,00,000 was realised by the fifth respondent and the petitioner-firm has already paid the duty amount, the fifth respondent has to refund a sum of Rs. 17,561 to the petitioner. The calculation of duty payable by the petitioner-firm is as follows: Details Amount Rs. Bill of entry No. 5016, dated 31-1-1995 6,94,747.50 Bill of entry No. 5066, dated 3-11-1995 14,14,792.50 Bill of entry No. 6148, dated 3-2-1995 6,10,097.00 Total 27,19,637.00 Duty already paid 9,37,198.00 Balance payable 17,82,439.00 Balance paid 8,00,000.00 Excess paid 17,561.00 6. It was further submitted that no provision has been stipulated in Notification No. 160/1992, dated April 20, 1992 to demand interest on duty when export obligation is not completed. Hence, the petitioner-firm requested the fifth respondent to drop further proceedings and to grant refund of excess duty paid by them. But instead of returning the excess duty, the third respondent passed the impugned order under section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 demanding to pay interest within a period of 30 days. 7. He....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmined by the fifth respondent along with interest. Hence, as the interest amount is not paid by the petitioner-firm, the third respondent has rightly passed the impugned order demanding interest from the petitioner-company. 12. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has produced Circular No. 131/1995-Customs, dated December 20, 1995, wherein paragraph 2(b) reads as follows:- "In case of non-fulfilment of the conditions of the notifications, interest at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum on the duty becoming payable shall also be recoverable from the date of clearance of imported goods till the date of payment." Therefore, as per the above circular, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of 24 per cent. per annum on the duty. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Admittedly, the petitioner-firm has failed to fulfil the export obligation according to the conditions mentioned in the licence issued to the petitioner-firm by the first respondent. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (EPCG), Customs House (EPCG) has issued a show-cause notice from File No. S45/51/1995-EPCG stating that a sum of Rs. 72,53,112 is proposed to be recovere....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Customs Act. It would not attract section 28(1) of the Customs Act which covers the cases of duty not levied, short-levied or erroneously refunded, etc. The order for payment of duty under section 125(2) would be an integral part of proceedings relating to confiscation and consequential orders thereon, on the grounds as in this case that the importer had violated the conditions of notification subject to which exemption of goods was granted, without attracting the provisions of section 28(1) of the Customs Act. A reference may beneficially be made to a decision of this court reported in Mohan Meaking Ltd. v. CCE [2000] 115 ELT 3 (SC); [2000] 1 SCC 462 wherein it has been observed in paragraph 6"... Therefore, there is a mandatory requirement on the adjudicating officer before permitting the redemption of goods, firstly, to assess the market value of the goods and then to levy any duty or charge payable on such goods apart from the redemption fine that he intends to levy under sub-section (1) of that section." In this view of the matter the objection raised by the centre that section 28 of the Customs Act would be attracted is not sustainable.' The notification only giv....