2009 (5) TMI 779 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Requirement of pre-deposit of duty, redemption fine, and penalty.
- Dispute regarding third party export under a shipping bill.
- Interpretation of EXIM Policy provisions and ministry's circular.
- Release order for export issued by the Chief Director of Directorate of Sugar.
- Export realization in respect of advance licences.
- Sustainability of objection by the revenue.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore dealt with the requirement of pre-deposit of duty, redemption fine, and penalty by the appellants, who were holders of advance licenses. The dispute arose concerning the export under a shipping bill where the revenue objected to the third party export indicated in one specific bill out of ten. The learned Advocate highlighted EXIM Policy provisions and a ministry's circular clarifying the admissibility of third party export for fulfilling export obligations. The release order for export issued by the Chief Director of Directorate of Sugar was crucial, allowing the appellant to procure sugar from specified sources without restrictions on inter-State movement for export. The order explicitly linked the export of sugar to the fulfillment of export obligations against the import of Raw Sugar under a specific advance license.

The Tribunal carefully examined the documents related to export realization in connection with the advance licenses held by the appellants. Considering the arguments presented and the evidence provided, the Tribunal found that the objection raised by the revenue regarding the third party export was not sustainable. The Tribunal acknowledged the strong case presented by the appellants and consequently ordered a full waiver of the pre-deposit amounts demanded in the impugned order until the appeal's final disposal. Additionally, the Tribunal directed that no coercive action should be taken against the appellants during the appeal process and even after the expiration of the stay order period, which was set at 180 days. This comprehensive analysis of the issues and evidence led to a favorable decision for the appellants, ensuring their protection from coercive actions during the appeal process.