CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI REGIONAL BENCH – COURT No. III Customs Appeal No. 41360 of 2017 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 11/2017 dated 31.03.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004)

M/s. Sree Koppammal Cotton Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Sempatti Post, Puliyuran, Aruppukottai – 626 101.

Versus Commissioner of Customs ...Respondent Tuticorin Commissionerate, Custom House, New Harbour Estate, Tuticorin – 628 004.

APPEARANCE:

For the Appellant : Mr. Mayavan Gopinath, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. O.M. Reena, Authorised Representative CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER No. 40539 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING : 13.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION : 27.04.2026 Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO This is an appeal filed by M/s. Sree Koppammal Cotton Spinning Mills Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Appellant”) to assail the Order-in-Original No. 11/2017 dated 31.03.2017 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin (hereinafter referred to as “LAA”).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the Appellant imported capital goods under four EPCG licences and availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 97/2004-Cus dated 17/09/2004. Details of the EPCG Licence No. & date, Bill of Entry No. & date, value of imported capital goods and Customs duty foregone are as mentioned in the table below: -

Sl. EPCG Licence Bill of Entry Value of Duty No. No. & Date No. & Date imported Foregone capital goods (in Rs.)

(Rs.)

(i) 3530002103 (i)399894

1 dated dated 2,34,18,444 66,87,709

07.11.2006 21.11.2006 (ii) 399653 dated (ii) 3530002105

2 16.11.2006 1,04,02,288 29,88,418 dated (iii) 353987 07.11.2006 dated

11.12.2006 (iii) 3530002669 (iv) 493028

3 dated dated 4,36,571 1,12,903

07.06.2007 27.06.2007 (iv) 3530002608 (v) 410818

4 dated dated 1,95,73,800 44,52,236

30.04.2007 14.05.2007 TOTAL 5,38,31,103 1,42,41,266

3. Appellant got the imported goods cleared from Customs on execution of bond binding the Appellant to pay the differential duty with interest in case the export obligation stipulated under the said notification was not fulfilled. In terms of the condition stipulated in the four EPCG licences, the Appellant was required to export goods valued at Rs. 11,39,30,128/- to fulfill the export obligation.

4. The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as “DRI”) gathered specific intelligence that the Appellant has fraudulently obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (hereinafter referred to as “EODC”) from the office of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade (JDGFT), Madurai, by claiming that they have fulfilled their export obligation by exporting through some unconnected third-party exporters, by submitting irrelevant export documents falsely showing exports having been done on their behalf and by submitting false certificate in order to evade Customs duty payable for non-fulfillment of export obligation as undertaken by them at the time of importing the capital goods and thus evaded payment of appropriate Customs duty involved in the imported capital goods.

5. Investigation conducted by DRI revealed that towards discharge of their export obligation, Appellant had submitted shipping bills filed by third party exporters which had endorsement of EPCG licenses of the Appellant despite such third party exporters being in no way connected with the Appellant as there was no commercial relationship or transaction between the third party exporters and Appellant. The Appellant got their export obligation discharged by obtaining false certificate from Chartered Accountant that the goods covered under Shipping Bills filed by third party exporters which were being considered for EODC had been manufactured by Appellant.

6. Upon completion of investigation, the Show Cause Notice No. 10/2015 dated 30.03.2015 was issued to Appellant by Addi