9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff and assessment of duty, including anti-dumping duty. 2. Rejection of request for re-export based on lack of proper documentation. 3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Classification of Imported Goods and Assessment of Duty: The appellant imported 'Measuring Tapes' from China and filed a Bill of Entry for clearance. Customs authorities classified the goods under Customs Tariff and imposed duty, including anti-dumping duty. The appellant found the duty amount high and expressed inability to clear the goods, requesting permission for re-export to the supplier. Despite the Commissioner's decision that the goods were not liable for confiscation, the request for re-export was denied due to alleged lack of proper documentation, including a certificate about non-remittance of foreign exchange and an 'No Objection Certificate' from RBI. Rejection of Request for Re-Export: The Tribunal found the objections raised against re-export to be baseless. A letter from the supplier confirmed that payment for the goods had not been remitted by the appellant, and the supplier requested re-export of the goods. In the absence of contrary evidence, the demand for proof of non-remittance of payment by Customs authorities was deemed unreasonable. The requirement of an NOC from RBI was considered unnecessary for freely importable goods where no payment had been made for the consignment. Additionally, a Circular from the Central Board of Excise & Customs clarified that an NOC from RBI need not be insisted upon. The Tribunal concluded that Customs authorities were unjustly obstructing the appellant's efforts to export the goods without any legal basis, deeming the impugned order as clearly illegal and setting it aside. The appellant was granted the liberty to re-export or export the goods as desired. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act: Despite the Customs authorities proposing confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act in a show cause notice, the Commissioner adjudged that the goods were not liable for confiscation. However, the rejection of the re-export request based on documentation issues was found to lack legal merit. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the order and allow the appellant to re-export the goods emphasized the absence of a legal basis for the Customs authorities' actions, highlighting the importance of proper justification and adherence to legal requirements in such matters. ---
|
