9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of conditions under Notification No. 158/95-Cus regarding re-export of goods within a specified period. 2. Authority of Commissioner of Customs to grant extension of time for re-export. 3. Compliance with conditions of the notification by the appellant. 4. Consideration of leniency in case of technical violations. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged an order setting aside the original decision dropping proceedings against the appellant for importing and re-exporting leather jackets under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The dispute arose from re-exporting 233 pieces beyond the initial six-month period allowed under the notification. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the power to grant extension of time for re-export under the notification rested with the Commissioner of Customs. Since no extension was granted to the appellant, the subsequent re-export beyond the initial six months was deemed unauthorized, leading to the appeal against the original order. 3. The appellant contended that they believed the extension of time was granted post-facto by the authorities, as the proceedings were dropped by the Assistant Commissioner. However, no formal extension letter was received, and the bond executed on importation was canceled upon re-export. The appellant argued that since they fulfilled their obligations, the authority should have granted the extension. 4. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant failed to seek an extension of time from the Commissioner before the expiry of the initial six-month period, leading to a violation of the notification conditions. It was asserted that the subsequent re-export beyond the stipulated period warranted the demand for customs duty and interest. 5. The Tribunal noted that the notification required re-export within six months, with a provision for extension up to an additional six months by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant's letter seeking extension went unanswered, and the proceedings were dropped by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal opined that the appellant's belief in the extension was reasonable given the circumstances. 6. Considering the technical violation due to the lack of formal extension, the Tribunal recommended leniency, emphasizing that the goods were eventually re-exported within one year. It suggested that the concerned authorities should reconsider the appellant's request for a post-facto extension and re-examine the show cause notice accordingly. 7. Consequently, the order in appeal was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority for a decision in line with the Tribunal's directions, emphasizing a lenient approach due to the circumstances surrounding the re-export of goods under Notification No. 158/95-Cus.
|
