2011 (1) TMI 783 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision applications - Re-export of cigarettes - In the cited cases where the goods were allowed for re-export by the Govt. of India and goods were disposed off by the Deptt., the redemption fine should not be deducted and only personal penalty may kindly be deducted from the sale proceeds/CIF value of the goods - The adjudicating authority has shown with calculation that the duty itself was more than the sale proceeds - Therefore he rightly rejected the refund claims. Moreover, the GOI order No. 452-454/08 dated 26-11-08 had specified that export option may be exercised within 60 days of the issue of said order - Since the re-export option could not be exercised within said stipulated period, the said orders cannot be made applicable for clearance of goods for home consumption - As such the impugned orders-in-appeal remains legally enforceable for clearance of goods for home consumption -The revision applications are therefore rejected.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai.
2. Refund claim of sale proceeds of cigarettes.
3. Deduction of duty from sale proceeds.
4. Re-export option allowed by the Government of India.
5. Legality of deduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The applicants filed revision applications against orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai. The applicants arrived at CSI Airport, Mumbai, from Yeman with cigarettes, which were confiscated by the adjudicating authority. The authority gave the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine and imposed a personal penalty. The applicants appealed the decision, leading to a revision application. The Government of India later allowed re-export of the goods on reduced terms, resolving the issue.

2. The applicants claimed a refund of the sale proceeds of the cigarettes after the department disposed of the goods and realized the sale proceeds. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) directed the applicants to pay the penalty as the sale proceeds were insufficient to cover the redemption fine and duty. The applicants appealed to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai, who rejected their claim.

3. The main contention was the deduction of duty from the sale proceeds. The applicants argued that since re-export was allowed, the deduction of duty was unjustified. However, the Government held that since the goods were already sold in the domestic market and re-export was not feasible, duty deduction was legally correct. The duty amount exceeded the sale proceeds, justifying the rejection of the refund claim.

4. The Government highlighted that the re-export option specified by the GOI had a time limit, which the applicants failed to meet. Therefore, the impugned orders-in-appeal remained enforceable for clearance of goods for home consumption. The Government upheld the findings in the impugned order-in-appeal, rejecting the revision applications due to lack of merit.

5. The revision applications were dismissed, and the orders-in-appeal were upheld with modifications as deemed necessary by the Government. The decision was made after a thorough review of the case records and legal considerations, concluding that the applicants' claims lacked legal standing.

This detailed analysis covers the various issues involved in the legal judgment, outlining the sequence of events, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Government.