CESTAT sets aside Section 114AA penalties on firm and director for duty-free gold domestic sales, accepts export obligation papers as valid proof

CESTAT Delhi set aside penalties imposed under Section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on a firm and its director for allegedly selling duty-free gold in domestic market instead of using it for jewelry export. The tribunal held that customs authorities had accepted export obligation papers as proof of jewelry exports, fulfilling exemption notification conditions. Revenue's inference based on tally sheets showing only duty-free gold stock was rejected, citing CBIC Circular 23/2018 which clarified no one-to-one correlation required between imported precious metal and exported jewelry due to homogeneous nature. The adjudicating authority's penalty imposition was based on assumptions without evidence. Appeal allowed, penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs on firm and Rs. 1 lakh on director set aside.

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves the imposition of penalties under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on a company and its director for alleged diversion of duty-free gold meant for export purposes into the domestic market. The primary issue is whether the penalties imposed on the two appellants are justified.

Summary:

Issue 1: Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice
The appellants contended that the order was passed without proper opportunity of hearing, alleging a violation of natural justice principles. The tribunal found that despite multiple adjournment requests, the appellants failed to cooperate by not responding to the show cause notice or attending the scheduled hearings. It was noted that the Customs Act limits adjournments to three times for a party, and as the appellants did not avail themselves of the opportunities provided, the tribunal concluded that there was no breach of natural justice.

Issue 2: Alleged Sale of Duty-Free Gold
The appellants denied making false declarations or documents and argued against the imposition of penalties under section 114AA. They cited a circular stating that there is no one-to-one correlation between imported gold and exported jewelry. The revenue representative, however, referred to a statement by the director admitting to the sale of duty-free gold in the domestic market. The tribunal analyzed the import-export obligations under relevant notifications and circulars, ultimately finding that the appellants had fulfilled their export obligations, as evidenced by submitted documents accepted by customs authorities. Therefore, the tribunal rejected the revenue's argument and set aside the penalties imposed under section 114AA.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs on the company and Rs. 1 lakh on its director, ruling that there was no basis for imposing penalties under section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Both appeals were allowed, and the judgment was pronounced on 15th December 2023.

---