Bank Realisation Certificate not mandatory as proof of export for gold jewellery; duty demand and extended limitation failed.
Where export instructions for gold jewellery dispense with a Bank Realisation Certificate as proof of export, customs duty cannot be demanded from the nominated agency merely for non-production of that certificate once the prescribed export documents have been furnished and the bond has been cancelled after verification. The text also notes that, where export details were already disclosed and compliance was verified, a later allegation of suppression of facts has no factual basis and cannot justify invocation of the extended limitation period. On that reasoning, the duty, interest and penalties confirmed in the impugned orders were set aside and consequential relief followed.
Issues: (i) Whether duty demand could be sustained against the nominated agency for non-production of Bank Realisation Certificate when the prescribed export documents were furnished for proof of export of gold jewellery. (ii) Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of any factual basis for alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.
Issue (i): Whether duty demand could be sustained against the nominated agency for non-production of Bank Realisation Certificate when the prescribed export documents were furnished for proof of export of gold jewellery.
Analysis: The duty demand was founded on alleged violation of the notification conditions and the bond executed by the importer. The Public Notice issued on 06.09.2013 relaxed the earlier requirement and provided that, for export of gold jewellery and articles of gold, the Bank Realisation Certificate would not be insisted upon as proof of export, while the export promotion copy of the shipping bill and customs attested invoice remained sufficient. The appellant furnished the export documents and the department had accepted compliance and cancelled the bond after verification. The Tribunal also followed the earlier view that the liability for non-realisation of sale proceeds, if any, would lie elsewhere and that the nominated agency could not be fastened with customs duty merely for want of a Bank Realisation Certificate when the governing instructions did not require it as proof of export.
Conclusion: The duty demand was not sustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand was barred by limitation in the absence of any factual basis for alleging suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.
Analysis: The show cause notices alleged suppression and intent to evade duty, but the export details had been furnished and the bonds were cancelled by the department after verification. In those circumstances, the later allegation of suppression lacked factual foundation and could not support invocation of the extended limitation period.
Conclusion: The limitation issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The duty, interest and penalties confirmed in the impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing export instructions dispense with the Bank Realisation Certificate as proof of export for gold jewellery, customs duty cannot be demanded from the nominated agency merely for non-production of that certificate after the export documents have been accepted and the bond cancelled on verification.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
