2019 (8) TMI 1496 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal overturns order, emphasizes compliance with export obligations & exemption conditions.

Pointec Writing Instruments Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Cochin

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeals, setting aside the impugned order by the Commissioner of Customs. It was found that the appellant had ... Advance License Scheme - non-fulfilment of export obligation - SCN issued on the ground that the export obligation period has expired and the appellants have failed to produce evidence for discharge of export obligation even during the extended time given to them and therefore they have violated the conditions of the exemption Notification No. 43/2002 dated 19.04.2002 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has fulfilled the export obligation and has also produced the written letter dated 01.07.2014 in respect of the said Advance Licence which clearly proves that he has fulfilled the export obligation. Since the only ground on which the demand was confirmed was non-submission of EODC and the same has now been submitted by the appellant showing that he has fulfilled the export obligation within the time. In view of this redemption letter dated 01.07.2014 produced on record, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and therefore the same is set aside by allowing all the appeals of the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner of Customs- Violation of conditions of exemption Notification No. 43/2002- Non-submission of EODC certificate- Fulfillment of export obligationAnalysis:The appellants filed three appeals against a common impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejecting their appeal and confirming the Order-in-Original. The issue in all three appeals was identical, and with the consent of both parties, the appeals were decided together. The appellants were issued an Advance License for importing packing material, but a show-cause notice was later issued as they allegedly failed to produce evidence for discharging the export obligation. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed a duty demand against the appellants, which was upheld by the Commissioner in the appeal.The appellant argued that the impugned order was not sustainable as it was passed without proper appreciation of facts and law. They contended that they had fulfilled the export obligation within the stipulated time but faced a delay in obtaining the EODC certificate. Subsequently, they obtained the EODC certificate, proving compliance with the export obligation under the Advance License. The Assistant Commissioner, however, defended the impugned order.Upon hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed fulfilled the export obligation and had submitted the necessary documentation, including a letter dated 01.07.2014, proving compliance with the Advance License requirements. As the demand was based solely on the non-submission of the EODC certificate, which was later provided by the appellant, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable in law. Consequently, all appeals of the appellant were allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.The Tribunal's decision was based on the fulfillment of the export obligation by the appellant and the submission of the required documentation, leading to the conclusion that the demand against the appellant was not valid. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with the conditions of exemption notifications and the significance of providing necessary certificates and evidence to support claims of fulfillment of obligations.