Machinery Seizure & EPCG Default: Landmark Ruling by CESTAT Hyderabad Bench



Quick Summary
A landmark ruling by the Hyderabad CESTAT addresses situations where machinery seizure makes fulfilling Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) license obligations impossible. The tribunal established that government action, like seizure, should not be treated as willful non-compliance. This precedent highlights that penalties and confiscation may be invalid if the exporter couldn't fulfill obligations due to external factors, emphasizing procedural fairness and proper duty computation.

The Hon'ble Hyderabad CESTAT in the case of M/s SRI HAVISHA HOSPITALITY & INFRASTRUCTURE LTD Vs COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, HYDERABAD [2026-VIL-371-CESTAT-HYD-CU] dwelt with the Act of Impossibility for EO under EPCG Licenses, due to seizure of machinery itself.

This case is a strong precedent for arguing that impossibility due to government action (seizure) cannot be equated with willful non-compliance. Here are the key pointers:

CESTAT Ruling: Machinery Seizure and EPCG Default

Key Legal Takeaways

  • Act of Impossibility: Courts and tribunals recognize that if machinery is seized, the exporter cannot reasonably fulfill export obligations. This makes penalties and confiscation questionable.
  • Notification 28/97 Condition 3: Duty computation must consider permissible exports already made, and depreciation of capital goods. Ignoring these factors makes the demand unsustainable.
  • Procedural Fairness: Orders passed without hearing the appellant or considering pending requests (extensions, third-party exports, depreciation) are legally vulnerable.
  • Outcome: In such cases, confiscation and penalties are often set aside, and matters remanded for proper re-computation of duty, acknowledging impossibility rather than deliberate default.
 
 

Compliance Insight for businesses operating under EPCG

  • Always document external factors (like seizure, market conditions) that prevent fulfillment of obligations.
  • File timely requests for extensions, third-party exports, and depreciation-based duty computation.
  • If penalized, challenge on grounds of natural justice and notification-specific provisions

FAQ :

The case dealt with the impossibility of fulfilling Export Obligations (EO) under EPCG licenses due to the seizure of the machinery itself.

The ruling suggests that impossibility of fulfilling obligations due to government action, such as machinery seizure, cannot be equated with willful non-compliance.

It requires duty computation to consider permissible exports already made and the depreciation of capital goods.

Orders passed without hearing the appellant or considering pending requests for extensions, third-party exports, or depreciation are legally vulnerable.

Confiscation and penalties are often set aside, and matters are remanded for proper re-computation of duty, acknowledging the impossibility of fulfillment.

Businesses should document external factors preventing obligation fulfillment, file timely requests for extensions and depreciation-based duty computation, and challenge penalties on grounds of natural justice.




About the Author

DESIGNATED PARTNER

Mr. Vivek Jalan is a FCA, Qualified LL.M (Constitutional Law) and LL.B. He is the Chairman of The Fiscal Affairs and Taxation Committee of The Bengal Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He is the Convenor on Indirect Taxes of the CII- Economic Affairs and Taxation Committee (ER); He is also a visiting faculty for Indirec ... Read more

Comments :

Related Articles


Loading


Popular Articles





CCI Pro

CCI Articles

submit article