2006 (3) TMI 480 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Overturns Order, Remands for Fresh Review on Export Consideration

The Tribunal set aside the order confirming demands before the licensing period's expiry, deeming it unjustified. The matter was remanded for fresh ... Demand - EXIM, EPCG Scheme Issues:Challenging confirmation of demand under OIO No. 1/05 by Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore for default in fulfilling export obligation under EPCG scheme. Authority to question extension of export obligation period. Justification of demand confirmation before expiry of licensing period.Analysis:The appellants contested the demand confirmation based on OIO No. 1/05 by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, alleging default in fulfilling export obligation under the EPCG scheme. They argued that the licensing authority had extended the time for meeting the export obligation until 27-7-2006. The appellants relied on various judgments to support their claim that the Commissioner lacked the authority to question the extension granted by the licensing authority. They contended that demands should not be confirmed until the licensing period is over. The appellants emphasized that the demand was premature and requested a remand for proceedings only after the licensing period's expiry.The learned SDR, on the other hand, supported the Commissioner's findings that the appellants had not complied with the export terms within the block period, justifying the initiation of proceedings for demand confirmation. However, the Tribunal, after careful consideration and citing relevant case law, opined that adjudication could not occur before the licensing period's expiration, which was 27-7-2006. The appellants presented evidence of exports through a specific entity, which was later exonerated from alleged wrongdoings. The Tribunal found fault with the Commissioner for not considering these exports and emphasized the need to include them in calculating the export obligation. The Tribunal also highlighted the importance of adhering to Board Circulars and Supreme Court rulings, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the matter only after the licensing period ends.In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming demands before the licensing period's expiry, deeming it unjustified and legally incorrect. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration by the Commissioner, with instructions to take into account all relevant submissions, including the exports through the specific entity, M/s. Garden City Fashions. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for remand, emphasizing the necessity of considering all relevant factors and submissions in the reevaluation process.