2011 (9) TMI 770 - AT - Customs

Export of prohibited goods - export of milk powders (including skimmed milk powder, whole milk powder, dairy whitener and infant milk foods) - Notification No. 37(RE-2010)/2009-2014, dated 24-3-11 - held that - While the export of the Casein and milk powder had been prohibited by Ministry of Commerce dated 18-2-2011 in terms of Notification dated 24-3-2011, the export of those consignments of milk powder and casein products were permitted/provided the export consignments were to be handed over to the Customs House for examination and for let export order on or before 18-2-2011. In this case, the goods, in question, had been presented for examination to the jurisdictional central excise officers on 18-2-2011 and examination had been completed on that date itself and as discussed above, this examination was on the basis of permission in this regard given by the concerned Customs House. - the goods in question are covered by the relaxation under Ministry of Commerce Notification No. 37(RE-2010)/2009-2014, dated 24-3-11. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Export prohibition notification interpretation, Presentation of goods for examination, Customs examination and export process, Applicability of relaxation notification, Judicial review of administrative decisions.

Export Prohibition Notification Interpretation:
The Ministry of Commerce issued notifications prohibiting the export of specific products, including milk powders and casein derivatives. Transitional arrangements were initially not applicable, but later amended to permit export of certain consignments already handed over to customs for examination and export before the prohibition date. The case involved goods presented for export after the prohibition date, leading to a dispute over the interpretation of the prohibition notifications.

Presentation of Goods for Examination:
The appellant filed shipping bills for export of acid casein and skimmed milk powder before the prohibition date. Central excise officers examined and sealed the containers on the same day, but the export was disallowed as they were presented to customs after the prohibition date. The issue revolved around whether presenting goods for examination to central excise officers constituted handing over to customs for export within the relaxation period.

Customs Examination and Export Process:
The central excise officers examined the goods in the factory and sealed the containers with customs seals based on permission from the concerned Customs House. The Tribunal analyzed circulars and notifications to determine that in-factory examination by central excise officers, with customs officer status, sufficed as examination by customs. The process of infactory examination, stuffing, and sealing was deemed equivalent to customs examination.

Applicability of Relaxation Notification:
The Tribunal concluded that goods presented for examination before central excise officers with customs officer status on the prohibition date were effectively handed over to customs for export within the relaxation period. As the examination was completed on the prohibition date based on customs permission, the goods fell under the relaxation notification's purview. The Tribunal held that the export could not be disallowed due to the timing of presentation at the port on the following day.

Judicial Review of Administrative Decisions:
The Commissioner and the Addl. Commissioner had previously upheld the disallowance of export based on the timing of presentation to customs at the port. The Tribunal, however, overturned their decisions, emphasizing the legal significance of in-factory examination by central excise officers and the applicability of the relaxation notification. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and highlighting the correctness of the appellant's interpretation in presenting goods for export within the relaxation period.