STANDARD SURFACTANTS LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPORTED the said goods. The petitioner had to correspondingly fulfil the export obligations. The petitioner was unable to fulfil the export obligations within the stipulated period of time. request made by the petitioner was declined. The petitioner sought to challenge the same by filing CWP No. 497 of 2000 thereafter, take the decision by a speaking order. exporter code of the petitioner. The revocation of the suspension is one of the prayers in the present petition. deposit of Rs. 14,80,400 seeking the waiver of penalty and interest. Since this did not find favour with the respondent - Commission under sub -s. (7) of s. 127C of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the Customs Act'), the customs duty amount was settled for Rs. 14,80,400 which had already been paid. This is based on the finding that the reasons advanced by the petitioner for non -fulfilment of export obligations were, prima facie, correct and the petitioner had tried to get the period of export obligations extended, but could not succeed in the same. The contention of the petitioner that the electrical parts had been acquired at standard rate of duty was also found to be correct and this was, in fact, conceded by the Revenue Department before the Settlement Commission. The interest was held not applicable and even fine and penalty were waived since the petitioner had made full and true disclosure of the duty liability. Immunity was also granted from prosecution.

(2.) DESPITE the aforesaid decision of the Settlement Commission, the Director General of Foreign Trade did not discharge the bank guarantee and the representations of the petitioner that the complete matter stood settled in view of the said order of the Settlement Commission was not accepted. petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 22,77,788 towards interest liability within four weeks, failing which the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioner was to be encashed after obtaining leave from the High Court. This leave to be initiated against the firm to confiscate the capital goods under s. 11(5) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Foreign Trade Act') and for maintenance of suspension of the importer -exporter code.

(3.) THE substratum of the decision of the respondents is based on an opinion obtained from the Law Ministry dt. 29th matters where the importer/exporter has not made full and true disclosure of the duty liability before the proper officer. Since the goods were already declared in the present case, the petitioner was under obligation to fulfil the export obligation to get benefit of the scheme, failing which the interest was liable to be paid. This legal opinion was followed advance/EPCG licence were not fulfilled, the liability to pay interest on the duty would not get extinguished despite the final order issued by the Settlement Commission as the Settlement Commission has jurisdiction only under the Customs Act and not under the Foreign Trade Act. 8. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that order of the Settlement Commission settles the complete dispute in view of the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the said Commission as also the fact that once the issue of customs duty is settled and interest is waived as also penalty, the respondents cannot recover interest or take any punitive action, since there is no other duty payable other than the customs duty. It is, thus, submitted that in case the petitioner is made to pay the amount, it would amount to nullifying the order of the Settlement Commission. Learned guarantee to further substantiate this plea that the amount had to be remitted to the head of accounts of customs revenue and it was not being charged on any other account. The additional plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in any case this circular has come post the passing of the order of the Settlement Commission and since the order of the Settlement Commission has not been challenged and has attained finality, any subsequent circular cannot affect the findings arrived at by the Settlement Commission.