2025 (10) TMI 502 - AT - Customs

Confiscation and duty recovery invalid after licensing authority records discharge of export obligation

CESTAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeals, holding that confiscation and recovery of duty foregone were without legal basis. Once the licensing authority ... Claim of possession by redemption under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 with obligation to discharge duties foregone at the time of import - jurisdiction to recover duties after statutory discharge of obligations - breach of condition at serial no. 3 of N/N.51/2000-Cus dated 27th April 2000 - HELD THAT:- In re Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd [2021 (2) TMI 93 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that 'The Directorate General of Foreign Trade has issued the advance licence for duty free import after due Notification that materials can be used for production of export goods. The respondent fulfilled the export obligations in respect of exporting men’s full sleeve shirts of specified value, which was examined by Joint Director of Foreign Trade and Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) was issued. Thereafter, it is not open for the officers of the customs department to contend that the imported material cannot be used for manufacture of shirts and that respondent has not discharged its export obligation by violating the conditions of the exemption Notification.' In Titan Medical Systems Pvt Ltd [2002 (11) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that 'The only case is that the value which had been indicated in the application was very large whereas what was actually spent was a paltry amount. To be noted that the licensing authority having taken no steps to cancel the licence. The licensing authority have not claimed that there was any misrepresentation. Once an advance licence was issued and not questioned by the licensing authority, the Customs authorities cannot refuse exemption on an allegation that there was misrepresentation. If there was any misrepresentation, it was for the licensing authority to take steps in that behalf.' Of more consequence is the initiating of proceedings which, from facts of discharge of export obligation as well as erroneous assumption about ‘stock keeping’, that has been questioned for lacking validation. It is found that the catena of cases, cited by the appellant, precludes such jurisdiction vesting on the customs authorities once the obligation has ceased to subsist in the records of the licensing authority. The confiscation, and consequences, as affirmed in the impugned order and including recovery of duty foregone, are without basis of law owing to which the appeals are allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether, after the licensing authority/DGFT has accepted fulfilment of export obligation and issued certification (EODC), the customs authorities retain jurisdiction to recover duty foregone and other consequences by invoking Section 125 of the Customs Act as a condition of redemption or by any other parallel recovery mechanism. 2. Whether recovery of duty and confiscation can be sustained where the imported goods are not available for confiscation/redemption at the time of adjudication. 3. Whether alleged inter-company transfers and domestic clearance, based on stock-ascertained figures for a limited period, suffice to establish diversion in breach of the advance-licence/DEEC scheme and notification conditions so as to justify confiscation, imposition of duty and penalties. 4. Scope and applicability of Section 125 vis-à-vis Section 28 of the Customs Act for recovery of duties not levied/short-levied where exemption was claimed under advance licence; and interaction of judicial precedents on these questions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Jurisdiction to recover duty after licensing authority/DGFT has issued EODC Legal framework: Section 125 permits redemption of confiscated goods on payment of a fine and makes the person liable to 'any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods.' Section 28 is the statutory provision for recovery of duties not levied/short-levied or erroneously refunded, post-assessment. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal recognises and follows the principle in Jagdish Cancer (SC) that Section 125(2) may be used to demand duty as part of confiscation/redemption proceedings without invoking Section 28, and that an adjudicator must assess market value and levy duty when permitting redemption. However, the Tribunal also applies and follows decisions (including Titan Medical Systems, Aditya Birla Nuvo, Autolite) holding that once the licensing authority has granted and not rescinded an advance licence and DGFT has accepted discharge of export obligation (EODC), customs cannot re-open the exemption entitlement on mere allegations and seek recovery. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reconciles Jagdish Cancer's authorization of S.125 recovery within confiscation proceedings with the separate proposition that the licensing authority's formal acceptance (EODC) and non-action precludes customs from disputing entitlement retrospectively. The Tribunal reasons that the licencing authority's certification, given after verification by customs and left unchallenged, terminates the cause of action insofar as the exemption is concerned; to permit customs to recover duties after such certification would undermine the licensing authority's finality and the statutory scheme. The Tribunal further notes that S.125 recovery is contingent on an order of confiscation and availability/possession of goods for redemption; it cannot be used as a backdoor to pursue duty where the statutory and administrative record shows discharge of obligation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where DGFT/licensing authority has accepted fulfilment of export obligations and issued an EODC (after verification), customs lacks jurisdiction to recover duty foregone under confiscation/redemption proceedings; the licensing authority's certification extinguishes the cause of action relating to the exemption. Obiter - observations reconciling procedural nuances between S.125 and S.28 are explanatory of the scope of each provision but subordinate to the primary holding. Conclusion: Confiscation and recovery of duty foregone, as affirmed in the impugned orders, are without basis of law where the licensing authority has certified discharge of export obligation and has not rescinded the licence; appeals on this ground succeed. Issue 2: Availability of goods for confiscation/redemption and effect on recovery Legal framework: Section 125 provides for option of redemption of confiscated goods on payment of a fine and duty; confiscation presupposes availability of goods for seizure/forfeiture. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal follows authorities (including Jagdish Cancer; Fortis; Navayuga; High Court decisions cited) holding that recovery under S.125 is predicated on the goods being available for confiscation/redemption, and that non-availability may preclude confiscation and the consequent recovery. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal accepts that where goods are not available for redemption/confiscation, the importer may decline the option to redeem, thereby avoiding the attendant obligation to pay duties and fines under S.125. If the goods are not physically available or record shows lack of stock over the export obligation period, confiscation and duty recovery under S.125 cannot be sustained. The Tribunal also notes that renunciation of the redemption option by an importer is an act of agency with legal consequences that preclude further recovery under S.125 when goods are not available. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Non-availability of goods for confiscation is a substantive bar to sustaining confiscation and recovery under Section 125; an importer may forgo redemption and thereby negate S.125-based recovery. Obiter - procedural guidance on assessment of stock records and temporal coverage of stock ascertainment. Conclusion: Where goods are not available for confiscation or redemption, consequential recovery under Section 125 cannot be sustained; the impugned recovery on this basis is unsupportable. Issue 3: Sufficiency of stock ascertainment and alleged diversion/transfers to establish breach of scheme/notification Legal framework: Conditions of advance licence/DEEC and relevant exemption notifications require actual user for manufacture of export goods and restrict diversion to domestic market; proof of diversion must be grounded on reliable stock and transaction records covering the export-obligation period. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal applies authorities which protect the licensing authority's factual determinations and require clear proof of misrepresentation or non-fulfilment of conditions before customs may deny exemption. Titan and Aditya Birla principles are followed: customs cannot go behind a valid, unrevoked licence and certification to deny duty-free treatment absent licensing authority action. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal finds that the stock ascertainment relied upon was limited (covering only January-July 2001) and did not span the full export-obligation period; transfer allegations were contested and record showed inter-company movements that were explained (e.g., loaned goods returned upon subsequent import). Given DGFT's acceptance of export fulfilment and the incomplete stock validation, the Tribunal holds that the record does not establish diversion sufficient to justify confiscation, duty recovery and penalties. The Tribunal emphasises that where a licensing authority has not questioned the licence or EODC, it is for the licensing authority to address any misrepresentation; customs cannot unilaterally overturn the exemption on disputed factual matrices insufficiently probative of diversion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Short or partial stock records and contested transfer allegations do not, without more, justify confiscation or recovery where licensing authority has granted and not withdrawn benefit and issued EODC. Obiter - guidance that a complete stock-and-flow validation across the export-obligation period is necessary to sustain a finding of diversion. Conclusion: The limited stock ascertainment and disputed transfer evidence did not validate diversion or breach of the scheme such as to support confiscation, duty recovery or penalties; those consequences cannot be sustained. Issue 4: Interaction between Section 125 and Section 28 and treatment of precedents Legal framework: Section 28 provides for recovery of duties not levied/short-levied after assessment; Section 125 forms part of confiscation regime and authorises duty liability as part of redemption orders. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal recognises Jagdish Cancer's holding that an order under S.125(2) for payment of duty is distinct from S.28 proceedings and permissible as part of confiscation. Simultaneously, the Tribunal follows Titan, Aditya Birla and Autolite which limit customs' power to contest exemption after licensing authority's unchallenged acceptance. The Tribunal therefore applies these authorities in harmony: S.125 may support duty recovery in appropriate confiscation contexts, but it cannot be used to override a licensing authority's certification of discharged export obligations or to pursue duty where goods are not available or where the administrative record indicates fulfilment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal reconciles the precedents by distinguishing cases where S.125 was validly employed to recover duties in possession/confiscation scenarios from cases where licensing authority acceptance or non-availability of goods precluded such action. The Tribunal thereby confines Jagdish Cancer to its factual ambit and declines to permit S.125 to operate so as to nullify final administrative certification (EODC) or to operate where confiscation is impracticable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Section 125 may be invoked to recover duties as part of confiscation proceedings where goods are available and there is a valid basis for confiscation; it does not authorize retrospective disturbance of a licensing authority's unchallenged certification of fulfilment nor permit recovery where confiscation is impossible due to non-availability. Obiter - procedural interplay between S.28 and S.125 discussed for contextual clarity. Conclusion: Precedents are followed and harmonised: S.125 remains available in appropriate circumstances, but not to supplant licensing authority determinations or to recover duties where the administrative record (EODC) and non-availability of goods negate confiscation; accordingly the impugned confiscation and recovery are quashed.