2015 (12) TMI 723 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns duty imposition due to missing certificate, stresses timely compliance

GLS FILM INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's decision to impose duty and penalties on the appellant for not producing an export obligation discharge ... Waiver of pre deposit - appellant has not been able to produce the export obligation discharged certificate by DGFT and as such, the benefit of duty free imports availed in terms of Notification No. 55/2003-Cus., dated 1-4-2003 - Held that:- Appellants have made efforts for procurement of the certificate, the issuance of which is in hands of DGFT officers. If the said certificates are not being issued by DGFT, the assessee cannot be blamed for the same. We would like to observe here that number of such type of orders are repeatedly argued before us whereas inspite of an assessee having done his part of the job, the DGFT authority are not issuing necessary certificates. Such type of inaction on the part of the DGFT officers result in increase of litigation at all the levels thus creating obstacle to discharge of other deserving matters by consuming the time of the Court. Apart from that, unnecessary litigation also involve unnecessary expenses and if the same can be avoided, it should be. - Impugned order is set aside - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Denial of benefit of duty free imports due to non-production of export obligation discharge certificate by DGFT.Analysis:The Commissioner confirmed a duty of Rs. 90,00,000 along with interest and penalties as the appellant failed to produce the export obligation discharge certificate by DGFT, thus losing the benefit of duty free imports under Notification No. 55/2003-Cus., dated 1-4-2003. The appellant's advocate argued that they had applied for the certificate and sent reminders to DGFT but had not received it. The Tribunal noted that the issuance of such certificates lies with DGFT officers, and the appellant should not be penalized if the certificates are not being issued. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the repeated instances where appellants fulfill their obligations but face delays from DGFT, leading to unnecessary litigation and expenses. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner to await the decision of DGFT authorities before making a final determination.The Tribunal emphasized the need for DGFT authorities to act promptly and efficiently in issuing necessary certificates to avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses for the parties involved. By sending a copy of the order to the concerned DGFT authorities, the Tribunal sought to ensure proper action is taken. The petition and appeal were disposed of in the manner described, highlighting the importance of timely and efficient administrative actions to prevent hindrances in the legal process and unnecessary financial burdens on the parties.