Tribunal allows appeal, finding appellant complied with export obligation period.

The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and allowed the appeal, determining that the appellant fulfilled the export obligation within the stipulated period. The show cause notice issued prematurely was based on an incorrect assumption of the obligation period. The delay in obtaining the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) was attributed to the DGFT's processing time, not the appellant's actions. The appellant's compliance was upheld, and they were not held accountable for the delay in the EODC issuance.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notice issued prior to the completion of the export obligation period.
2. Fulfillment of the export obligation within the stipulated period.
3. Delay in issuance of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued Prior to the Completion of the Export Obligation Period:
The appellant contended that the show cause notice dated October 14, 2015, was issued prematurely since the export obligation period was twelve years, and 50% of the total export obligation was required to be fulfilled by December 05, 2016. The Tribunal noted that the license issued under the EPCG Scheme mentioned a twelve-year export obligation period, which was not disputed in the show cause notice or the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice could not have been issued prior to December 05, 2016, as it was based on an incorrect assumption of an eight-year obligation period.

2. Fulfillment of the Export Obligation Within the Stipulated Period:
The appellant provided evidence that it had applied for the issuance of the EODC on November 09, 2016, before the expiry of the ten-year period. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had indeed fulfilled the export obligation within the stipulated period, and any delay in obtaining the EODC was due to the DGFT's processing time. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant could not be blamed for the DGFT's delay in issuing the certificate.

3. Delay in Issuance of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) by the DGFT:
The Tribunal referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Smiiel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Customs, which held that delays by the DGFT in issuing the EODC cannot be attributed to the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant had applied for the EODC in a timely manner, and the certificate was issued on December 09, 2016, just a few days after the ten-year period expired. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not violated any conditions of the notification.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the order dated September 05, 2019, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and allowed the appeal with consequential relief(s), concluding that the appellant had fulfilled the export obligation within the stipulated period and could not be held responsible for the delay in issuing the EODC by the DGFT.

---