2015 (11) TMI 439 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court affirms Tribunal's denial of extension under EPCG Scheme. Appellant's arguments rejected. Rectification order upheld.

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to deny extension for export obligations under the EPCG Scheme. The Court rejected the appellant's ... Benefit of Notification No. 160/92-CUS dated 20.04.1992 - third party export - Extension of time for fulfillment of obligations of Notifications - Non furnishing of Bank guarantee - Held that:- Certain exports made by the third party in terms of said para were sought to be included by the assessee in order to show that it had fulfilled the entire export obligations. However, the condition in this para is that the export has to be in the name of EPCG licence holder. It is specifically taken note of by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the exports which were purportedly shown did not bear any such EPCG licence and, therefore, rightly rejected the contention of the assessee even on this aspect. - No error in the main order of the Tribunal or in the order dismissing the rectification application. We may record that in the present appeal, the assessee had challenged the order only passed in the application for rectification - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Import duty exemption under EPCG Scheme2. Fulfillment of export obligations3. Consideration of exports by other divisions4. Inclusion of exports by third party5. Tribunal's order and rectification applicationImport duty exemption under EPCG Scheme:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing various yarns, imported capital goods under the EPCG Scheme with duty exemption as per Notification No. 160/92-CUS. The appellant was required to export finished products equivalent to four times the CIF value of imported goods within five years. The appellant only fulfilled 80% of the obligations within the stipulated period but failed to provide the necessary bank guarantee for extension requests, leading to denial of extension.Fulfillment of export obligations:The appellant argued that exports by its other units should be considered to meet obligations. However, it failed to prove if these units exported goods within the original five-year period. The Tribunal rightly rejected this argument as the exports by the units post-dated the deadline without any granted extension.Consideration of exports by other divisions:The appellant contended that exports by third parties could be counted towards fulfillment as per policy. However, the Tribunal noted that these exports lacked the necessary EPCG license connection, leading to the rejection of this argument.Inclusion of exports by third party:The Tribunal's main order and dismissal of the rectification application were upheld by the Supreme Court. Despite the appeal challenging the rectification order, the Court examined the entire dispute and found no errors in the Tribunal's decision. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal's order was sound on merits.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding the denial of extension for export obligations and rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding the inclusion of exports by other divisions and third parties. The Court found no errors in the Tribunal's order and upheld the decision.