2025 (3) TMI 1201 - AT - Customs

Penalties and fines unenforceable after compliance with Amnesty Scheme; Tribunal sets aside previous order under Customs Appeals.

The Tribunal concluded that the penalties and redemption fines imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) were unenforceable after the appellant ... Seeking for deletion of penalty and redemption fine imposed against the Appellant - Appellant had availed the benefit of Amnesty Scheme by making payment of the entire Customs duty - HELD THAT:- Snce Appellant had sought for deletion of penalty and redemption fine imposed against the Appellant, the part component of which is addressed in the above para and the other part concerning confiscation would no more be valid as the Act or its omission had been regularised through the Amnesty Scheme launched by the Government of India, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) against which appeal has been pending before this Tribunal at the time of availment of such Amnesty Scheme, becomes unenforceable after irregularity, if any, has been remediated and therefore, the same is required to be set aside. Hence the order. The order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II is hereby set aside - Appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are: Whether the imposition of penalty and redemption fine by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is valid after the appellant availed the benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. Whether the appeal pending before the Tribunal is covered under the Amnesty Scheme, which provides for the closure of cases upon compliance with its terms. Whether the Amnesty Scheme contemplates the imposition of penalties or fines for non-fulfillment of export obligations under the EPCG Scheme. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Validity of Penalty and Redemption Fine Post-Amnesty Scheme- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The case revolves around the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 111(o) and 112(a), which deal with confiscation and penalties for non-fulfillment of obligations under the EPCG Scheme. The Amnesty Scheme launched by the Department of Commerce on 01.04.2023 is also central to the issue.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the Amnesty Scheme does not explicitly mention the continuation of penalties or fines once the appellant complies with the scheme's requirements. The Tribunal referred to Clause (ix) of the Amnesty Scheme, which allows for the closure of appeals upon submission of a closure letter.- Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant had complied with the Amnesty Scheme by paying the full customs duty and interest, as evidenced by the regularization letter from the DGFT. The Tribunal found that this compliance should negate the penalties and fines.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the provisions of the Amnesty Scheme to the appellant's case, concluding that the penalties and fines were no longer enforceable since the appellant had rectified the non-fulfillment of export obligations through the scheme.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent argued that the Amnesty Scheme's closure provisions applied only to the first appellate authority, not the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal disagreed, interpreting the scheme as applicable to all pending appeals.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the penalties and redemption fines should be set aside, as the appellant's compliance with the Amnesty Scheme rendered the previous order unenforceable.Issue 2: Coverage of Tribunal Appeals under the Amnesty Scheme- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal focused on the language of Clause (ix) of the Amnesty Scheme, which discusses the closure of appeals upon compliance with the scheme.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal interpreted the scheme's language as inclusive of all appeals, including those pending before the Tribunal, not just the first appellate authority.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal cited the language of Clause (ix)(b), which does not restrict its application to the first appellate authority, thus supporting the appellant's position.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the scheme's provisions to the appellant's case, determining that the appeal before the Tribunal was indeed covered under the scheme.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's restrictive interpretation of the scheme was not supported by the Tribunal, which favored a broader application.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appeal was covered under the Amnesty Scheme, allowing for the closure of the case upon compliance.Issue 3: Imposition of Penalties and Fines under the Amnesty Scheme- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Tribunal examined the Amnesty Scheme and relevant case law, including the decision in M/s. Makwuds India Private Limited, which addressed similar issues.- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal found that the Amnesty Scheme does not explicitly provide for the imposition of penalties or fines for non-fulfillment of export obligations, especially after compliance.- Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the absence of any provision in the Amnesty Scheme that would uphold penalties or fines post-compliance.- Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the scheme's provisions, concluding that the penalties and fines were not applicable after the appellant's compliance.- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the respondent's arguments but found them unpersuasive in light of the scheme's language and intent.- Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the penalties and fines were not enforceable under the Amnesty Scheme, leading to their dismissal.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS- The Tribunal held that the Amnesty Scheme covers appeals pending before the Tribunal, not just the first appellate authority, allowing for the closure of such cases upon compliance.- The Tribunal established that the Amnesty Scheme does not provide for the continuation of penalties or fines once the appellant has complied with its terms.- The final determination was that the penalties and redemption fines imposed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) were unenforceable post-compliance with the Amnesty Scheme, leading to the setting aside of the previous order.