2004 (7) TMI 442 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to re-export goods when ownership not passed on
- Validity of re-export request in case of confiscated goods
- Application of previous judgments on re-export entitlement

Entitlement to Re-export Goods When Ownership Not Passed On:
The appellant sought re-export of peripherals and dyes supplied to a trading corporation, claiming ownership not transferred. The original authority denied re-export, penalizing the importer for irregular import and confiscable goods. The importer and another individual accepted penalties under the KVSS scheme. The appellant argued for re-export based on the Supreme Court's judgment in UOI v. Sampat Raj Dugar and the Tribunal's decision in Unisindo Trading Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Hyderabad.

Validity of Re-export Request in Case of Confiscated Goods:
The appellant's counsel filed submissions citing relevant judgments and requested re-export. The respondent contended that re-export was not feasible for tainted and confiscable goods, referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in CC, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd. The Tribunal also held in Peer Chemicals and Metallurgy (P) Ltd. v. CC, Chennai that re-export was not granted in similar cases of violation and confiscation.

Application of Previous Judgments on Re-export Entitlement:
After reviewing submissions and previous judgments, the Tribunal deliberated on the supplier's entitlement to request re-export. The adjudicating authority penalized the importers for Customs Act violations, leading to confiscation of goods. The Tribunal found that in cases where goods were absolutely confiscated for violations, as in the present situation, re-export was not permissible. Contrary to previous cases where goods were abandoned without violating license terms, the current case involved tainted goods confiscated for violating the EXIM Policy and Customs Act provisions. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the denial of re-export, citing the applicability of the judgments in CC, Kolkata v. Grand Prime Ltd. and Peer Chemicals & Metallurgy Pvt. Ltd.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the confiscated goods could not be re-exported due to violations of the Customs Act and EXIM Policy, aligning with previous judgments on similar cases.