Court sets aside ex parte order requiring customs duty deposit due to missing Export Obligation Discharge Certificate

The Court set aside the ex parte Order-in-Original directing the petitioner to deposit customs duty for failure to produce the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC). Despite the respondent's counsel's unavailability, the Court accepted the petitioner's claim of submitting the EODC and remanded the matter for fresh determination. Emphasizing the importance of the EODC submitted by the petitioner, the Court ordered further proceedings before the Additional Commissioner. The writ petition and pending application were disposed of accordingly, with instructions for compliance issued to both parties.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner directed to deposit entire customs duty for failure to produce Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC). Allegation of non-receipt of show cause notice (SCN) and subsequent notices. Impugned ex parte Order-in-Original affirming duty demand. Previous orders setting aside adjudication orders in similar circumstances. Unavailability of instructions from respondent's counsel. Petitioner's assertion of obtaining and submitting EODC. Setting aside impugned order and remanding for fresh determination. Listing before Additional Commissioner for further proceedings. Disposal of writ petition and pending application.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the issue of the petitioner being directed to deposit the entire customs duty due to the alleged failure to produce the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC). The petitioner claimed to have fulfilled its export obligation under the EPCG License and submitted the EODC to the Commissioner of Customs. However, a show cause notice issued years later was allegedly not served on the petitioner, leading to an ex parte Order-in-Original affirming the duty demand.

The Court noted that in similar cases, orders had been issued setting aside adjudication orders and remanding the matter for fresh consideration upon submission of the EODC. Despite the respondent's counsel seeking time for instructions and later stating non-receipt of instructions, the Court relied on the petitioner's assertion of obtaining and submitting the EODC to set aside the impugned order. The judgment emphasized the importance of considering the EODC dated 5th November, 2008, issued to the petitioner by the Zonal Joint Director General of Foreign Trade for a fresh determination.

Consequently, the Court decided to remand the matter to the concerned Additional Commissioner for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The case was scheduled to be listed before the Additional Commissioner on a specified date for the said proceedings. The writ petition and pending application were disposed of based on the decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter, with instructions for dasti order issuance to both parties for compliance.

---