Penalty under Customs Act Sections 28 and 114A set aside where export obligations failed without fraud or suppression

The Tribunal held that allegations of collusion, wilful misstatement and suppression under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 were unsustainable, as the appellant's failure to fulfil export obligations arose from absence of export orders, and the imported materials were used domestically with duty and interest paid voluntarily prior to issuance of notice. By operation of Section 28(10B) and 28(2), the show cause notice dated 23.01.2018 was deemed to be under Section 28(1), and in such circumstances issuance of notice itself was unwarranted. Consequently, penalty under Section 114A was held unjustified. The impugned order was set aside to the extent of equal penalty under Section 114A, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether the pre-notice payment of customs duty and interest, coupled with regularisation by the DGFT, attracted the protection of Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 so that issuance of a show cause notice and levy of penalty were impermissible.

1.2 Whether, in the absence of established collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts to evade duty, a notice issued under Section 28(4) could be treated as one under Section 28(1) by operation of Section 28(10B), thereby excluding penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

1.3 Whether, on the admitted facts, imposition of equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was legally sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Effect of pre-notice payment of duty and interest and applicability of Section 28(2)

Legal framework

2.1 The Court reproduced and relied upon Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, which stipulates that where a person pays duty along with interest and informs the proper officer in writing, the officer shall not serve any notice under Section 28(1)(a) in respect of such duty, interest or any penalty connected therewith. The proviso further provides that, even where notice is issued, if the duty and interest specified in the notice are paid in full within thirty days of receipt, no penalty shall be levied and proceedings shall be deemed concluded.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.2 The appellant had imported raw materials under an advance authorisation but failed to fulfil export obligations and used the imported goods for manufacture and sale in the domestic market. On their own, they paid the customs duty along with interest on 30.06.2017, i.e. before issuance of the show cause notice, and informed the authorities while simultaneously seeking regularisation from the DGFT.

2.3 The Court noted that, despite such payment, a show cause notice dated 24.01.2018 was issued demanding duty under Section 28(4) along with interest and proposing penalty. The Departmental Representative fairly conceded before the Tribunal that, in these facts, no show cause notice ought to have been issued.

2.4 In light of the statutory mandate of Section 28(2), the Court held that once duty and interest had been paid and the proper officer had been informed, service of a notice in respect of that duty, interest or related penalty was not permissible. Furthermore, even assuming a notice to have been validly issued, the scheme of Section 28(2) and its proviso makes it clear that payment of duty and interest within the prescribed period forecloses levy of penalty.

Conclusions

2.5 The Court concluded that, in the circumstances of prior payment of duty and interest and intimation to the authorities, issuance of the show cause notice itself was contrary to Section 28(2), and in any case, no penalty could be imposed in relation to the duty and interest already paid.

Issue 2 - Re-characterisation of notice under Section 28(4) as one under Section 28(1) by virtue of Section 28(10B) and consequences for penalty under Section 114A

Legal framework

2.6 The Court reproduced Section 28(10B) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides that a notice issued under Section 28(4) shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 28(1) if, in any proceedings, the demand is found unsustainable for want of proof of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts to evade duty, and that duty and interest shall thereupon be computed accordingly.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 On examination of the show cause notice and record, the Court found that the allegations of collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts to evade duty had neither been properly levelled nor established. The essence of the case was merely non-fulfilment of export obligation under the advance authorisation, followed by domestic clearance of the goods.

2.8 The statement of the Director of the appellant was noted, wherein he explained that the export obligation could not be fulfilled due to absence of export orders, resulting in domestic sale of finished goods. There was no material to indicate any deliberate act to evade customs duty at the time of import.

2.9 The Court further observed that the appellant had voluntarily paid the entire duty and interest much before issuance of the show cause notice and had approached the DGFT for regularisation. DGFT had, by letter dated 15.01.2018, confirmed that the case had been "regularised and closed" in terms of para 4.28(ii) of the Handbook of Procedures after such payment. These facts were treated as corroborative of the absence of mens rea or fraudulent intent.

2.10 Consequently, the Court held that the preconditions for invoking Section 28(4) (viz. collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression to evade duty) were not met. By operation of Section 28(10B), the notice issued under Section 28(4) therefore stood converted into a notice under Section 28(1), thereby attracting the regime applicable to non-fraud cases, including the benefit of Section 28(2).

Conclusions

2.11 The Court concluded that the extended period provisions and the harsher penal consequences associated with Section 28(4) and Section 114A were inapplicable. The demand had to be treated as one under Section 28(1), which, read with Section 28(2), excluded levy of penalty in the facts of the case.

Issue 3 - Sustainability of equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962

Legal framework

2.12 The penalty under Section 114A is predicated on non-payment or short payment of duty by reason of collusion, or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.13 The Court noted that the lower authorities had imposed equal penalty under Section 114A solely on the basis of violation of notification conditions and failure to meet export obligation, without establishing any element of collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression with intent to evade duty.

2.14 Having already held that the factual matrix did not disclose such culpable mental state, and that the case fell within the ambit of Section 28(1) read with Section 28(2) and 28(10B), the Court reasoned that the statutory prerequisites for invoking Section 114A were not satisfied.

2.15 The Court also took note that DGFT had regularised the lapse after payment of duty and interest and that the Department's own representative accepted that a show cause notice ought not to have been issued in such circumstances, reinforcing the conclusion that penal provisions were inapplicable.

Conclusions

2.16 The Court held that imposition of equal penalty under Section 114A was not legally justified. The impugned order was set aside to the extent it imposed penalty under Section 114A, while leaving intact the payment and appropriation of duty and interest, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief limited to deletion of such penalty.

---