Accepted export obligation bars parallel customs findings where third-party routed exports are otherwise supported by the record.

Acceptance of export obligation by the competent export authority limited the scope for customs to reopen the same issue through parallel proceedings. The article states that, where a 100% EOU's performance has been accepted by the Development Commissioner, duty demands, confiscation and penalties cannot be sustained on a contrary customs finding absent evidence of actual domestic tariff area sales. It also notes that exports routed through eligible third-party export houses are not discredited merely because the EOU's name does not appear in the shipping bills, and that confiscating capital goods while treating the unit as a continuing 100% EOU is internally inconsistent.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demands, confiscation and penalties could be sustained when the export obligation of the 100% EOU had been accepted by the Development Commissioner and the exports were routed through eligible third parties, despite the appellant's name not appearing in the shipping bills.

Analysis: The record showed that the export obligation arose under the permission granted by the DGFT and that the competent export authority had accepted the appellant's performance. On that basis, the customs authorities could not conduct parallel proceedings and record contrary findings on the same question. The alleged domestic tariff area clearances were not supported by evidence of actual DTA sale, and the objections based on the absence of the appellant's name in the shipping bills and the use of third-party export houses were insufficient to disbelieve the exports. The Tribunal also held that the customs order was internally inconsistent in allowing the unit to continue as a 100% EOU while simultaneously confiscating the very capital goods used for export production.

Conclusion: The duty demands, confiscations and penalties were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent export authority has accepted fulfillment of export obligation, customs authorities should not reopen the same issue through parallel proceedings, and exports routed through eligible third parties are not negated merely because the EOU's name does not appear in the shipping bills.

---