9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Extension of Warehousing Period, Re-export of Goods, Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Chief Commissioner's Order.
Analysis: 1. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal: The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the clearance of rough marble blocks that were warehoused. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the appellants to clear the goods within three months, either by payment of duty for clearance to the domestic tariff area or without payment of duty for export, as per Board's Circular 3/2003-Cus. The penalty imposed was also reduced to Rs. 10,000. 2. Extension of Warehousing Period: The appellant contended that they had requested an extension of the warehousing period, which was granted by the Chief Commissioner. However, the appellant argued that without this extension, they were not entitled to re-export the goods. The appellant's contention was that the request for re-export was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already allowed the appellant three months to clear the goods, irrespective of the extension issue, and hence dismissed this argument. 3. Re-export of Goods: The main grievance of the appellant was the inability to re-export the goods without the extension of the warehousing period. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already addressed and permitted the appellant to clear the goods to the domestic tariff area or for export without payment of duty within three months. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had already considered and allowed the re-export of goods within the specified period, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. 4. Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Chief Commissioner's Order: The Tribunal clarified that it did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the order passed by the Chief Commissioner of Customs regarding the extension of the warehousing period. Referring to the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, the Tribunal highlighted that its purview was limited to reviewing the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had already addressed the appellant's concerns and provided a directive for clearance of goods within three months, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order directing the clearance of goods within three months, either by payment of duty for domestic clearance or duty-free export, and dismissed the appeal due to the lack of jurisdiction to review the Chief Commissioner's order and the Commissioner (Appeals) having already addressed the appellant's grievances satisfactorily.
|
