2011 (3) TMI 482 - HC - Customs

Classification - Duty free reple-nishment (DFRC) Scheme - During the course of investigation the appellant-exporter sent a communication addressed to the Commissioner of Customs intimating that their staff had discharged a wrong consignment and sought permission to re-export all the goods - it is held prima facie they are satisfied that there is no collusion and the department has verified the consignment and collected the duty payable - The appeal is remanded to the Tribunal to be heard along with the Customs appeal No. 411/2009 filed by the importer after taking note of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal as well as the judgments of the Apex Court in accordance with law - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to Tribunal

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to order rejecting re-export request, misdeclaration of goods, confiscation of goods, waiver of pre-deposit, collusion between parties, inconsistent findings, consideration of re-export provision, remand of appeal to Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to order rejecting re-export request: The appellant, an Exporter, challenged the Tribunal's order rejecting the request for re-exporting goods misdeclared by the Importer. The Tribunal upheld the decision citing collusion between the parties and evasion of customs duty.

2. Misdeclaration of goods and confiscation: The goods imported were misdeclared as 'cotton corduroy fabrics' instead of 'Textile pieces of goods or Dyed cotton processed fabrics' under the DFRC Scheme. The Commissioner confiscated the goods due to misdeclaration, contravention of import prohibitions, and imposed a substantial demand, interest, and penalties on the Importer.

3. Waiver of pre-deposit: The Tribunal considered the Importer's application for waiver of pre-deposit, acknowledging the duty on past consignments but ordered the waiver of duty adjudicated by the authority due to the goods being in the custody of the department.

4. Collusion between parties and inconsistent findings: The Tribunal's findings on collusion differed in appeals filed by the Importer and Exporter, leading to inconsistent conclusions within a short time frame. The court noted the inconsistency and the need to address such discrepancies.

5. Consideration of re-export provision: The Exporter argued for re-export under a specific provision, citing a previous Tribunal ruling allowing such action. The court emphasized the need for the Tribunal to consider relevant judgments and pass orders based on merit and law.

6. Remand of appeal to Tribunal: The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the case for joint consideration with another appeal filed by the Importer. The Tribunal was directed to review all aspects, including relevant judgments, without influence from the High Court's observations.

7. Conclusion: The High Court's decision highlighted the importance of consistent findings, proper consideration of legal provisions, and adherence to judicial principles in handling appeals related to customs matters. The case underscores the significance of thorough examination and fair treatment in resolving disputes involving import and export regulations.