TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (3) TMI 112
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Customs Notification No. 169/90, dated 3-4-90 on the goods imported against EPCG licence No. P/CG/125697, dated 14-9-89 and confirmed the duty of Rs. 62,79,249/- and confiscated the goods valued at Rs. 48,82,000/- under Section 110(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 6,30,000/-. He has also demanded interest @ 24% per annum on the duty foregone from the date of clearance of the goods. He has also ordered enforcement of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 63,00,000/- executed with D.G.F.T. and appropriation of the same towards the above dues, apart from imposing penalty of Rs. 63,000/- on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants herein a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hem that they will not part with the goods. It was in these circumstances that show cause notice was issued which culminated in the order of adjudication passed by the Commissioner as noted above, against which the present appeal has been filed. In the grounds of appeal, it is inter alia stated as under : (a) The Notification No. 169/90 envisaged execution of bond before the licensing authority. As such for the consequences of non-fulfilment of export obligation, the appellant was bound to the President of India through the bond executed before the licensing authority. (b) The Hon'ble High Court of Madras vide order in the Writ Miscellaneous Petition No. 22817/1995 in the Writ Petition No. 14349/95 [2004 (165) E.L.T. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ai). (d) FAL Industries v. CC, Chennai reported in 2003 (159) E.L.T. 215 (T) = 2002 (53) RLT 86 (CEGAT - Che.). (e) Dyna Lamps & Glass Works Ltd. v. CC, Chennai reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 73 (Tri. - Che.). 4. Shri A. Jayachandran, learned JDR defended the impugned order and submitted that in the present case, non-fulfilment of the terms of the licence has been admitted by the appellants themselves and therefore, the order passed by the lower authority is in order and he prayed for rejection of the appeal. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made before us. We note that when the case came for hearing on 30-10-2003, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has disp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the learned Counsel. Further, we find that the Customs Department has not been made a party in the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court and there is no direction to the Customs Department not to enforce the Bank Guarantee. Further, it is to be noted that the appellants gave an undertaking to the concerned Assistant Commissioner of Customs binding themselves to pay the differential duty on demand in case of non-fulfilment of export obligation. Therefore, the argument of the appellants that the lower authority has passed the order without jurisdiction cannot be countenanced. 6. Now coming to the question of demand of duty in cases where the importers failed to discharge the export obligation when they have availed the benefit of....