EPCG-imported capital goods kept at vendors' premises; DGFT post-facto supporting-manufacturer approval defeats duty demand and s.114AA penalty.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Diversion of EPCG-imported capital goods to vendors' premises and non-endorsement of supporting manufacturers was held not to breach substantive EPCG conditions where there was no allegation of sale, transfer, or other impermissible disposal and the export obligation was stated to be fulfilled; DGFT's post facto approval for inclusion of supporting manufacturers bound Customs, and the remaining notification conditions were treated as compliance safeguards, so duty demand was unsustainable. Alleged misdeclaration under s.114AA failed as the notice did not establish any intentional false statement or document, so penalty was not imposable. Extended limitation was rejected because clearance under bond kept the obligation live, enabling issuance of notice upon non-production of discharge certificate, but the Revenue's appeal still failed on merits and was dismissed. - CESTAT....