Exporters Win: Full Duty Payment Under Amnesty Scheme Cancels Penalty for Export Obligation Defaults Under Section 112(a)

The Tribunal examined an EPCG Authorization case involving export obligation defaults. After analyzing the Amnesty Scheme's provisions, the court ruled that full payment of customs duty and interest under the scheme effectively regularizes the default. Consequently, the penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act was set aside, as the appellant had discharged the entire liability through the regularization mechanism. The decision reinforces the principle that complete duty payment negates penalty imposition.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal were:

• Whether the penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be sustained against the appellant who has regularized the default in export obligation under the Amnesty Scheme issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).
• The legal effect of the regularization of customs duty and interest payment under the Amnesty Scheme on the liability to pay penalty for non-fulfillment of export obligation under the EPCG Authorization.
• The applicability and interpretation of precedents relating to penalty imposition post-regularization of duty defaults under EPCG Scheme.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Sustenance of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act after regularization under the Amnesty Scheme

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The Customs Act, 1962, under section 112(a), empowers the authorities to impose penalty for contravention of provisions relating to customs duty, including failure to fulfill export obligations under EPCG Authorization. The EPCG Scheme allows import of goods at concessional customs duty subject to export obligation fulfillment within a stipulated time. Failure to meet export obligations attracts duty recovery along with penalty.

The Amnesty Scheme issued by DGFT provides a one-time settlement mechanism allowing defaulting EPCG Authorization holders to regularize their export obligation defaults by paying the customs duty foregone along with interest. The scheme aims to close pending defaults and discharge export obligations upon payment.

Precedents relied upon included the Kerala High Court decision in Saji Sukumaran Nair v. DGFT and the Tribunal decision in Keshava Medi Devices Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, which dealt with similar issues of penalty imposition post-regularization under amnesty schemes.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The Tribunal examined the Kerala High Court's reasoning, which held that once the entire customs duty foregone under the EPCG Scheme along with interest is paid under the Amnesty Scheme and an export obligation discharge certificate is issued by DGFT, the default is effectively regularized. The petitioner in that case was deemed to have not availed of the EPCG benefit, thereby discharging the liability to fulfill export obligations and negating the basis for penalty imposition under section 112(a).

The Tribunal noted that the Kerala High Court emphasized that the imposition of penalty or confiscation cannot be sustained where the default has been regularized by payment of duty and interest under the Amnesty Scheme. The rationale is that the benefit of concessional duty is nullified by full payment, thus extinguishing the cause for penalty.

Key evidence and findings:

The appellant had imported goods under EPCG Authorization at concessional duty and failed to meet the export obligation. Subsequently, the appellant applied for regularization under the Amnesty Scheme and paid customs duty of Rs. 1,93,81,033/- along with interest of Rs. 86,47,199/-, as confirmed by the DGFT's final duty paid regularization letter dated 01.01.2024.

The show cause notice and penalty order predated the regularization. The appellant's contention was that penalty under section 112(a) could not be imposed once the default was regularized under the Amnesty Scheme.

Application of law to facts:

The Tribunal applied the principle from the Kerala High Court and the Chennai Bench decision that payment of duty and interest under the Amnesty Scheme amounts to discharge of export obligation liability. Consequently, the appellant cannot be subjected to penalty for the same default.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The Department contended for sustaining the penalty despite the regularization. However, the Tribunal found the Department's argument untenable in light of the binding precedent and the policy underlying the Amnesty Scheme, which is to provide relief from penalty upon full payment of dues.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under section 112(a) could not be imposed after regularization under the Amnesty Scheme and set aside the penalty portion of the impugned order.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"Once a Scheme for settling the liability had been introduced and the petitioner had paid Customs Duty forgone together with interest thereon and had obtained an export obligation discharge certificate... the default in not achieving the export obligation was regularized by the proper authority... On payment of the total amount of duty along with interest, it must be deemed that the petitioner has not availed the benefit of the EPCG Scheme. If that were the situation, the liability to achieve export obligation would be discharged, and no penalty/fine could be imposed on the petitioner."

Core principles established include:

• Regularization of duty defaults under the Amnesty Scheme extinguishes the liability to fulfill export obligations under EPCG Authorization.
• Payment of the entire duty foregone along with interest is tantamount to negating the concessional benefit, thereby precluding penalty imposition under section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
• The penalty for failure to fulfill export obligations cannot be sustained once the default is regularized by the competent authority under the Amnesty Scheme.

The final determination was that the penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act was not sustainable post-regularization, and the impugned order imposing penalty was set aside, allowing the appeal on this ground.

---