ARJUNA NATURAL EXTRACTS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had imported a consignment of 'Boswellia gum against an advance licence dated 11-8-2011, issued by the 3rd respondent. As per the said advance licence, the petitioner was to discharge an export obligation worth Rs. 25,48,000/- before 10-8-2014, for the purposes of getting the benefit of concessional rate of Customs duty in respect of the imports effected under cover of the advance licence. It would appear that the petitioner occasioned a delay in submitting documents before the 3rd respondent, for the purposes of getting the necessary Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, which would have established that the petitioner had conformed with the condition with regard to export obligation, taking note of the non-production of an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent proceeded to finalise the assessment under the Customs Act, by denying the petitioner the benefit of concessional rate of duty in respect of the imports effected under cover of the advance licence, and demanded the duty that was foregone in respect of the goods at the time of their import. Ext. P2 is the order of the 2nd respondent confirming a duty demand of Rs. 6,87,366/- along with applicable interest, on the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition that the 2nd respondent proceeded to act with undue haste in confirming the differential duty demand on the petitioner, more so, when the petitioner was pursuing the matter with the 3rd respondent for the purposes of getting the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate. It is seen that the petitioner preferred an appeal against Ext. P2 order before the appellate authority under the Customs Act, but the said authority, by Ext. P5 order, dismissed the appeal, as being time-barred. In the writ petition, the petitioner impugns Exts. P2 and P5 orders of the original and appellate authority under the Customs Act, to the extent they confirm the differential duty demand on the petitioner.

(2.) Through counter affidavits filed on behalf of the 1st and 2nd respondents, Exts. P2 and P5 orders passed by the authorities under the Customs Act, are sought to be justified for the reasons contained therein. In particular it is pointed out that, inasmuch as the exemption notification under the Customs Act had to be strictly construed, the petitioner could not get the benefit of concessional rate of duty, when he had not complied with the requisite procedural conditions that were insisted upon in the notification granting the concessional rate of duty. In a statement filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, it is stated that, although initially the norms committee under the Director General Authority New Delhi, did not consider the case of the petitioner favourably for granting the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate, in a subsequent meeting, when it was found that the petitioner had submitted the necessary documents for establishing fulfilment of export obligation, the case of the petitioner was considered, and after collecting the differential duty in respect of the additional imports that had been effected for the excess export obligation discharged by the petitioner, the respondents condoned the delay in filing of export documents and other documentary proofs by the petitioner, and issued an Export Obligation Discharge Certificate on 20-9-2016, thereby redeeming the export obligation that was insisted in the advance licence granted to the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.R. Sreejith, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Girish Kumar, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 3rd respondent.