2019 (8) TMI 394 - HC - Customs

Court affirms penalty on company & director for export obligations, dismissing appeal & upholding director's liability.

The court upheld the Adjudicating Authority's decision imposing a penalty on the Company and its director for not meeting export obligations. Despite the ... Penalty on company and its directors - failure to fulfill the export obligation arising out of the authorization for import of goods without payment of custom duty - HELD THAT:- The observations and conclusion of the Appellate Authority are factual in nature, wherein the facts found that the Petitioner was thus, Managing Director of the Company, when permission to import goods without payment of duty was granted on the condition of fulfilling of such export obligation. The Company admittedly failed to discharge such obligation. The Petitioner had therefore, exposed himself for the liability arising out such authorization for import of goods. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner does not dispute the order of Appellate Authority on merits, but only disputes the liability of the Petitioner as the Director of the said Company. Petition dismissed. Issues involved:Challenge to order of Additional Director General of Foreign Trade dismissing appeal against adjudication order for failing export obligation, liability of director for penalty, failure to produce documentary evidence of resignation from directorship, reliance on letters dated 2002 and 2004, factual findings of appellate authority, liability of director for company's failure to fulfill export obligation.Analysis:The Petitioner challenged the order passed by the Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, which dismissed the appeal against the adjudication order imposing a penalty on the Company and its director for not fulfilling the export obligation arising from the authorization for importing goods without paying custom duty. The Petitioner claimed to have resigned from the directorship in 2002 and reiterated this in a subsequent letter in 2004. However, the Additional Director General found that the Adjudicating Authority's order was justified as the appellant failed to submit export documents proving fulfillment of export obligation and did not provide evidence of not holding the director's post at the time of authorization.The Additional Director General upheld the Adjudicating Authority's order, stating that there was no justification to interfere with it. The Petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence supporting his claim of resignation from the directorship at the time of authorization, despite relying on letters from 2002 and 2004. The court noted discrepancies in the dates of the letters and emphasized that the Petitioner's reliance on these letters was ineffective in proving his non-liability.The Appellate Authority's observations and conclusion were deemed factual, establishing that the Petitioner was the Managing Director of the Company when the authorization for importing goods without duty payment was granted, contingent on fulfilling the export obligation. Since the Company failed to meet this obligation, the Petitioner was held liable for the consequences of the authorization. The Petitioner's counsel did not dispute the Appellate Authority's decision on the merits but contested the director's liability. Consequently, the Writ Petition challenging the order was dismissed, affirming the director's liability for the company's failure to fulfill the export obligation.