By an order dated 29th June, 2006 the case of the appellant was settled by the Settlement Commission with a direction to pay the total duty amount of Rs.2,16,610/ and Rs.3,41,493/ respectively together with interest 15 per annum while granting immunity from prosecution and penalty to the appellant.
It was issued two licences under Export Promotion Capital Goods EPCG Scheme for CIF value of Rs.26,81,750/ and Rs.27,41,669/ respectively.
It presented bills of entry at Mumbai Customs for there clearance.
The Customs Act, 1962 the Act was enacted to companysolidate and amend the law relating to customs.
Indisputably on import of goods, customs duty is payable.
dated 20th April, 1992 in terms whereof an undertaking was required to be furnished before the Directorate General of Foreign Trade inter alia on the following terms viii .That the payment of the amount demanded by the government under this agreement will number affect the liability of the party to any other action, including the initiation of legal proceedings for companyfiscation of the imported material and refusal of further licences, and all other liabilities, penalties and companysequences under the provisions of the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992, and the Orders and Rules made thereunder, that may be decided by the Government.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said licences the appellant was required to export goods worth US 3,40,000 and US 3,47,600 respectively within a period of five years from the date of issuance thereof.
Questioning the direction of the Settlement Commission to pay interest 15 per annum, two writ petitions were filed by the appellant before the Bombay High Court which, by reason of the impugned judgment, have been dismissed.
In terms of the aforementioned Notification the appellant was required to furnish a bond and undertaking before the Director General of Foreign Trade, an authority created under the Foreign Trade Development and Regulation Act, 1992.
Appellant had also undertaken to pay interest on the differential amount.
Appellant, however, companyld number meet its export liability and the value of the exports made by it was to the extent of US 2,79,210 and US 2,80,450.83 respectively.
1730 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
On the appellants failure to meet its export obligations in terms of the said licences as also the Scheme aforementioned, a demand numberice was issued for payment of duty of 6,03,400/ and Rs.4,30,184/ respectively alongwith 15 interest per annum payable to the Revenue from the date of clearance of the capital goods till the date of payment of the duty demanded.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
On receipt of the said numberices, the appellant filed two applications before the Settlement Commission for settlement of its cases on 10th November, 2005 and 30th January, 2006.
It imported capital goods against the aforementioned licences availing the benefit of the Notification dated 20th April, 1992.
3934 of 2007 B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
Interpretation of the provisions of Section 127A read with Section 127H of the Customs Act is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 27th September, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition Nos.
6238 and 6242 of 2006 Appellant herein is an exporter.
