Order quashed: duty recovery and penalties set aside as proviso removed and s108 statements inadmissible; s112, s114AA invalid

CESTAT set aside the order confirming duty forgone and penalties. Tribunal held that amendment to the notification removed the proviso relied on, so the condition for export obligation did not exist during the relevant period and duty could not be recovered. Statements under section 108 were inadmissible because the procedure under section 138B was not followed, invalidating penalty under section 112. Penalty under section 114AA against the proprietor was also unsustainable. The impugned order was quashed and the appeal allowed.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether confirmation of customs duty forgone is sustainable where the exemption Notification does not require one-to-one correlation between imported duty-free gold and exported jewellery, and where the second proviso (requiring execution of bond and 120-day export obligation) was omitted prior to the alleged default period.

2. Whether demand for customs duty can be sustained against the exporter in respect of quantities for which the nominated agency had already paid duty and interest prior to investigation.

3. Whether statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act can be relied upon as evidence for adjudication and for imposition of penalties under sections 112 and 114AA where the procedural safeguards of section 138B were not complied with.

4. Whether recovery of duty in the present facts could be legitimately effected by enforcing a bond executed by the nominated agency, as opposed to recovery under section 28 of the Customs Act.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Requirement of one-to-one correlation and effect of omission of the second proviso to the Notification

Legal framework: The exemption Notification confers duty exemption for imports under the "Export Against Supply by Nominated Agencies" scheme subject to conditions; prior to amendment a second proviso required importers/nominated agencies to execute a bond undertaking export of jewellery equivalent to imported metal within 120 days and to pay duty on any shortfall. The proviso was omitted by a subsequent Notification dated 15.05.2015.

Precedent treatment: Administrative Circular (CBIC Circular 23/2018) clarifies there is no requirement of one-to-one correlation between a specific consignment of imported metal and a specific export consignment, provided proper records/accounting showing that duty-free metal has been exported through manufacture of jewellery are maintained. The Tribunal followed and applied this administrative position.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal examined the Notification text and the amending notification. It found that: (a) the Notification, even before amendment, imposed an obligation to export jewellery manufactured from duty-free metal but did not on its face require a strict consignment-by-consignment identity; (b) CBIC Circular 23/2018 expressly disavows any one-to-one consignment requirement and requires accounting instead; and (c) crucially, the second proviso - the specific statutory mechanism creating a bond-based, time-bound export obligation - was omitted on 15.05.2015, removing the particular obligation relied upon by the Department for the October 2015 period. Consequently, findings that the exporter failed to use the very same imported bars in the particular shipping bills (i.e., a one-to-one correlation) could not sustain a duty demand for the period after omission of the proviso.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the Notification does not mandate one-to-one correlation and where the operative proviso creating a specific bond-based export obligation has been omitted prior to the alleged breach, duty cannot be confirmed on the basis of failure to meet that proviso. Obiter - observations about the policy rationale of the Notification and critique of the Department's interpretive approach beyond the direct application of Circular 23/2018.

Conclusion: The confirmation of customs duty forgone for the export consignments dated October 2015 cannot be sustained on the ground of non-use of the very bars imported by the nominated agency, particularly because the second proviso - the legal basis for the bond/120-day obligation relied upon - had been omitted before the relevant period and because administrative guidance negates a strict one-to-one requirement.

Issue 2: Duty demand where nominated agency had already paid duty and interest

Legal framework: The Notification contemplates reassessment/demand of duty on quantities not utilized for export. Where nominated agency or importer pays duty and interest prior to adjudication, the legal question is whether a subsequent demand against the exporter remains maintainable.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal accepted the uncontested fact that MMTC had deposited duty and interest for the first set of entries (4.5 kg) before investigation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted the Notification permits the department to demand duty only on the quantity not utilized for manufacture/export. When the nominated agency itself paid the duty and interest for those non-exported quantities prior to the investigation, there remained no legal foundation to confirm a demand against the exporter for that specific quantity. The impugned order did not provide reasons for confirming duty in respect of those entries; accordingly, the demand as to the first set was unsustainable.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where duty with interest has been deposited by the nominated agency for quantities declared non-export prior to investigation, confirmation of a separate demand against the exporter for those specific quantities is not justified absent contrary findings. Obiter - none significant beyond application of the Notification text.

Conclusion: The duty demand in respect of the 4.5 kg tranche, already discharged by the nominated agency with interest, could not be sustained against the exporter and was not supported by the adjudicating order.

Issue 3: Admissibility and evidentiary value of statements under section 108 absent compliance with section 138B; consequence for penalties under sections 112 and 114AA

Legal framework: Section 108 permits recording of statements during inquiry; section 138B prescribes conditions under which such statements are admissible in adjudication (mirroring safeguards in section 9D of Central Excise law): where clause (a) exceptions do not apply, clause (b) requires the person to be examined as a witness before the adjudicating authority and an express opinion be formed that the statement should be admitted, followed by opportunity for cross-examination. Penalties under sections 112 and 114AA require proof of culpable acts/false statements.

Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on its prior decisions and a consistent line of authorities holding the clause (b) procedure mandatory - statements recorded under section 108 are inadmissible for proving truth of their contents unless the statutorily prescribed examination/admissibility procedure is followed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the impugned order materially relied on multiple statements recorded under section 108. The mandatory procedure under section 138B was not followed: the persons who made the statements were not examined as witnesses before the adjudicating authority and no reasoned admissibility determination was recorded; consequently the statements could not be treated as relevant evidence. Given that the Department's case and the penalty findings (sections 112 and 114AA) substantially rested on those inadmissible statements, the imposition of penalties could not be sustained.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - failure to comply with section 138B(1)(b) renders statements under section 108 irrelevant and inadmissible for proving substantive facts in adjudication; penalties predicated upon such inadmissible statements must be set aside. Obiter - observations on the rationale for procedural safeguards (risk of coerced confessions) reiterate established principles.

Conclusion: Statements recorded under section 108, relied upon without compliance with section 138B, were inadmissible; therefore penalties under section 112 (upon the firm) and section 114AA (upon the proprietor) could not be sustained and were set aside.

Issue 4: Recovery by enforcing nominated agency's bond versus recovery under section 28

Legal framework: Section 28 (and related recovery provisions) govern recovery of duties from liable persons; the second proviso (when in force) provided for bonds executed by nominated agencies, potentially creating contractual/conditional recovery mechanisms enforceable on default.

Precedent treatment and reasoning: Because the Tribunal concluded (Issue 1) that the second proviso had been omitted prior to the relevant export consignments and (Issue 2) that MMTC had paid duty for certain entries, the legal foundation for recovery by enforcing the bond - which presupposed existence of the proviso-based bond obligation - did not exist for the October 2015 period. Having found the overall substantive demand and penalty unsustainable on the identified grounds, it was unnecessary to adjudicate further the finer points of recovery mechanics; the Tribunal therefore declined to uphold recovery via bond enforcement.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where the legislative/notification basis for a bond-based recovery has ceased to exist for the relevant period, recovery cannot be sustained by enforcing such a bond. Obiter - detailed comparative analysis of section 28 versus bond enforcement was not essential given other dispositive grounds.

Conclusion: Given the omission of the second proviso prior to the relevant period and the quashing of the substantive demand and penalties on other grounds, recovery by enforcing the bond was without lawful foundation in the facts of this case; consideration of recovery mechanics under section 28 was rendered unnecessary.

Overall Disposition

The Tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's confirmation of customs duty forgone and the imposition of penalties under sections 112 and 114AA for the reasons summarized above: absence of a one-to-one consignment requirement (as per Circular 23/2018) and omission of the second proviso before the alleged defaults; prior payment of duty by the nominated agency for certain entries; and inadmissibility of statements recorded under section 108 in the absence of compliance with section 138B - the last ground being determinative for the penalty findings. The appeals were allowed accordingly.

---