2010 (12) TMI 136 - AT - Customs

Re-export of the goods - imported goods could be permitted to be re-exported when no offence was committed by the importer under the Act - no case that the respondent committed any offence in respect of the subject goods - main ground raised by the appellant that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not an appeal filed in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act - re-export of the goods permissible in law and the same not prejudicial to the Revenue Appeal disposed off

Summary

Issues:
1. Entertaining appeal against oral instructions of assessing officer.
2. Delay in assessment leading to higher duty payment.
3. Permissibility of re-export of goods under Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The respondent imported stainless steel sheets from Taiwan and claimed clearance under Bill of Entry. The goods were found to be exigible to Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) but the assessing authority delayed acting on the Bill of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) entertained the appeal against oral instructions of the assessing officer, leading to a dispute on the ADD payment rate. The main contention was whether the Commissioner could entertain the appeal against oral instructions. The Customs Act requires orders to be in writing for appeal under Section 128. The Tribunal held that the appeal was not filed in accordance with the Act, setting aside the Commissioner's order on jurisdictional grounds. However, the Tribunal found the case suitable for issuing directions to the departmental authorities under Rule 40 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, allowing the respondent to apply for re-export of goods to the Commissioner of Customs based on valid grounds.

2. The delay in assessment by the assessing authority resulted in the imposition of higher duty on the goods. The respondent sought re-export due to the delay causing financial implications. The Tribunal acknowledged that the delay led to increased duty payment and demurrages for the importer. The assessing authority's failure to promptly assess the Bill of Entry resulted in the importer incurring additional costs. The Tribunal recognized the respondent's predicament and allowed them to seek re-export as a remedy for the delays caused by the assessing authority.

3. The Customs Act, specifically Section 26A, allows for the refund of import duty in certain cases, including re-export of goods under prescribed conditions. The Tribunal examined the provisions of Section 26A, emphasizing that re-export is permissible when no offense has been committed by the importer. As the Revenue did not allege any offense by the respondent, the Tribunal concluded that the Customs authorities should have considered the request for re-export favorably. The Tribunal highlighted that the lower appellate authority should have advised the respondent to seek permission for re-export through proper administrative channels. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the legality of re-exporting the goods and directed the respondent to approach the Commissioner of Customs for approval within a specified timeframe.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the appeal not compliant with the Customs Act but issued directions for the respondent to apply for re-export based on valid grounds. The delay in assessment leading to higher duty payment was acknowledged, and the permissibility of re-export under the Customs Act was affirmed, providing a legal remedy for the importer's financial burden incurred due to the delay in assessment.