TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Dual Trade Benefit Schemes Challenged: Tribunal Orders Comprehensive Review of SHIS and Zero Duty EPCG Policy Interpretation</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs (Export) Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai Versus Siemens Ltd (Vice-Versa)</h3> Commissioner of Customs (Export) Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai Versus Siemens Ltd (Vice-Versa) - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe central issues considered in this judgment revolve around the alleged improper availing of benefits under two distinct schemes of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2009-2014 by the appellant, M/s Siemens Ltd. The primary legal questions include: Whether the appellant simultaneously availed benefits under the 'Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS)' and the 'Zero Duty Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG)' scheme, in violation of the FTP 2009-2014. Whether the appellant's actions constituted a willful misstatement and suppression of facts under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, justifying the recovery of duties and imposition of penalties. Whether the original adjudicating authority correctly interpreted and applied the relevant provisions of the FTP and Customs Act in determining the appellant's liability.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Simultaneous Availment of SHIS and Zero Duty EPCG Scheme Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The FTP 2009-2014 stipulates that exporters who avail benefits under the SHIS in a given year are not eligible for the Zero Duty EPCG scheme in the same year. This is outlined in Para 5.1(b) of the FTP. Additionally, public notice [no. 12(RE-2012)/2009-14] by the DGFT clarifies that if an applicant has availed Zero Duty EPCG Authorization during specified years, they are not entitled to SHIS for those years. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the original adjudicating authority failed to consider the timing and sequence of events regarding the issuance and utilization of the scrips under both schemes. The Tribunal highlighted the need to reassess whether the appellant indeed availed both benefits simultaneously or if the lapse of time between the issuance of scrips indicated otherwise. Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant's clearance of imports under SHIS and subsequent imports under the Zero Duty EPCG scheme were documented. The Tribunal observed that the appellant did not disclose imports under the EPCG scheme while presenting bills of entry for clearance under SHIS, which was deemed a willful omission. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the original authority's decision to recover duties and impose penalties was based on an incomplete assessment of the policy's intent and the appellant's actions. The Tribunal emphasized the need to reevaluate the case, considering the appellant's argument that duties were paid with applicable interest on the EPCG scheme to avail SHIS benefits. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant contended that the lapse of time between the issuance of the scrips and the actual importation should negate the presumption of simultaneous benefit availing. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and noted the original authority's oversight in not considering the DGFT's public notice and the appellant's compliance with policy prescriptions.2. Willful Misstatement and Suppression of Facts Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, any willful misstatement or suppression of facts resulting in undue benefit availing can lead to recovery of duties and penalties. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal questioned the original authority's conclusion that the appellant's actions constituted a willful misstatement. It pointed out that the appellant's failure to disclose the EPCG scheme imports was interpreted as suppression of facts, but this needed reevaluation in light of the complete policy context. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the appellant's argument that duties were paid with interest on the EPCG scheme, which was not adequately considered by the original authority. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal determined that the original authority's finding of willful misstatement required a more thorough examination of the appellant's actions and the policy framework. The Tribunal emphasized the need for fresh adjudication to ascertain whether the appellant's conduct truly amounted to suppression of facts. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal recognized the appellant's claim that the payment of duties with interest on the EPCG scheme should have been considered in determining the intent and compliance with policy requirements.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for fresh adjudication, leaving all issues open for reevaluation. Core Principles Established: The Tribunal underscored the importance of considering the complete context of policy prescriptions and the sequence of events when determining compliance with trade policies. It highlighted the necessity of thorough examination before concluding willful misstatement or suppression of facts. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal did not make final determinations on the issues but emphasized the need for re-adjudication to ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment of the appellant's liability under the FTP and Customs Act.
TaxTMI 