Page 194 - ELT_1st August 2020_Vol 373_Part 3

376 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

32. The Learned Counsel for the Customs Department (4th respondent
in W.P. No. 38158 of 2003) also drew attention to Public Notice No. 5/(Re-
99)/1997-2002, dated 6-4-1999 of the Ministry of Commerce, wherein the period
to discharge export obligation was extended to 31-3-2001 the licencee who had
failed to discharge the export obligation could apply for extension of the export
obligation on submission of bank guarantee covering the customs duty in pro-
portion to the unfulfilled portion of export obligation together with 24% simple
interest thereon from the date of import upto 30-9-2001. It was therefore submit-
ted that the petitioners failed to avail the opportunity and were bound to pay
interest on the customs duty proportionate to the unfulfilled portion of the ex-
port obligation.
33. The Learned Counsel for the respondent in (4th respondent in W.P.
No. 38158 of 2003) drew my attention to the decision of the Delhi High Court in
DSJ communications v. UOI rendered in W.P. No. 934/2010 [2014 (309) E.L.T. 230
(Del.)] wherein para 14, the Court held as under :-
14. Although, a period of fourteen and a half years has lapsed, since the
petitioner imported the capital goods, the petitioner has failed to show any
significant exports. In the given circumstances, the decision of the respond-
ents to reject the petitioner’s plea for further extension cannot be faulted.
The EPCG Committee in its meeting held on 12-11-2009 had considered the
fact that the petitioner had not made any exports during the past fourteen
and a half years and thus, their submission that they would fulfill the ex-
port obligations were not convincing. The denial of petitioner’s request to
include an alternate export product of “Cut and Polished Diamonds” and
grant a further extension was thus rejected and in my view, rightly so. It is
also material to note that even in cases of sick companies the Foreign Trade
Policy did not envisage an extension of period beyond twelve years and in
the instant case, the petitioner had not made any exports.
34. I have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner and the respondents.
35. In W.P. No. 38158 of 2003, the petitioner had imported capital
goods in the year 1995 while the petitioner in W.P. No. 22282 of 2009 had im-
ported capital goods in the year 1992.
36. Both the writ petitioners had availed the benefit of Customs Notifi-
cation No. 160/1992-Cus., dated 20-4-1992 at the time of import of the capital
goods under the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme announced
under the Export and Import Policy, 1992-1997.
37. Both the importers executed bond/undertaking to pay interest at
24% in case they failed to discharge export obligation or violate the conditions of
the license. The license itself contemplates that an importer has to execute a letter
of undertaking and bond as per para 102 of the Handbook of Procedure as
amended from time to time with respect to export obligation.
38. The licenses were issued in terms of the said Policy and the Policy
mandated that the petitioners had to execute a bond in terms of the Handbook of
Procedure. Thus, having taken advantage of the scheme, it is not open for the
petitioners to state that the respondents have no power to demand customs duty
and/or levy of interest thereon.
39. In fact, the custom duty foregone at the time of import was backed
with the Bank Guarantee which was also furnished in favour of the licensing au-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st August 2020  194