2014 (5) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Stay of Re-export of polyester/cotton blended fabrics on payment of fine Earlier no Request made for Re- export - Held that - Learned Superintendent (AR) submits that the order has to be stayed since the lower authorities can be compelled to allow re-export in the absence of any order from Tribunal - It was on the fourth occasion of adjudication of the dispute that the respondent came up with a request for re-export of the goods - It is to be noted that the duty liability had been originally worked out more than Rs.22 lakhs on fabrics - The assessable value of which was about Rs.1 lakh and even at that stage when the party filed the appeal they had not requested for re-export - When the matter came up for the second time before Commissioner (A), suddenly the request for re-export had come up for the first time - Such a request was not made earlier and neither Commissioner (A) has thought it fit to consider this aspect - The decision in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA Versus GRAND PRIME LTD. 2003 (7) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has also not been taken note of by Commissioner (A) - Thus, Revenue has made a strong prima facie case for grant of stay against the order of re-export passed by Commissioner (A) - Impugned order is stayed and the application for stay of the impugned order is allowed Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against Commissioner (A)'s decision permitting re-export of polyester/cotton blended fabrics on payment of fine.
- Validity of the re-export request made during the fourth round of adjudication.
- Consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision regarding re-export.

Analysis:
- The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Commissioner (A) allowing re-export of 11000 kg of fabrics on payment of a fine. The Revenue argued that the request for re-export was made for the first time during the fourth round of adjudication, despite no such request being made in the previous rounds of litigation. The duty liability had initially been calculated at over Rs. 22 lakhs, which was later reduced to Rs. 21,64,535. The Revenue contended that the re-export should not have been permitted, especially considering the absence of a valid reason or basis for the decision made by the Commissioner (A).

- The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments put forth by the Revenue, emphasizing that the request for re-export was introduced for the first time during the fourth round of adjudication. Despite the duty liability being initially assessed at a significant amount, the party did not request re-export during the earlier stages of the dispute. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner (A) did not provide a valid justification for allowing the re-export, and failed to consider the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on similar matters. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the Revenue had established a strong prima facie case for granting a stay against the order of re-export issued by the Commissioner (A). As a result, the impugned order was stayed, and the application for the stay of the order was approved.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised, the arguments presented by the parties involved, and the Tribunal's decision based on the legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.