2015 (12) TMI 722 - AT - Customs

Permission for re-export of goods - Non imposition of redemption fine - Held that - It is not the Revenue s case that purchase order was for lead scrap Rail. However, they are simplicitor referring to documents issued by the foreign supplier indicating the goods to be lead scrap rails. As the material sent by the foreign supplier is different than the material ordered for by the respondents, documents are bound to be different. It was in that scenario that the request was made to the Customs for re-export of the good, Commissioner has correctly come to a finding that in terms of the purchase order, recipient had ordered for lead scrap radio and in the absence of any evidence, intention of importer can not be doubted. We also find that no remittance has been made by the recipient to the foreign supplier. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Discrepancy in goods imported and goods ordered
- Allowance of re-export without redemption fine and penalty

Analysis:
Issue 1: Discrepancy in goods imported and goods ordered
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner allowing re-export of goods without imposing any redemption fine and penalty. The Commissioner found that the goods sent by the foreign supplier were different from the goods ordered in the purchase order. While the order specified Lead Scrap Radio, the supplier sent Lead Scrap RAILS, which required an export license. The respondents acknowledged the discrepancy but argued that the purchase order specified Lead Scrap Radio, which did not necessitate a license. The Commissioner, after examining the purchase order, concluded that the importer could not be attributed with any malafide intent as the goods ordered were different from those received. The absence of remittance to the foreign supplier further supported the importer's position.

Issue 2: Allowance of re-export without redemption fine and penalty
The Revenue contended that the purchase order was for Lead Scrap Radio, not Lead Scrap Rails as indicated by the documents from the foreign supplier. However, the Tribunal noted that discrepancies in documents were expected when the material sent differed from the material ordered. Considering the circumstances, the Commissioner correctly determined that the recipient had indeed ordered Lead Scrap Radio as per the purchase order. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing that there was no evidence to doubt the importer's intention. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was found to have no merit and was rejected by the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to allow re-export of the goods without imposing any redemption fine or penalty, as the discrepancy between the goods ordered and received was established based on the purchase order, and no malafide intent was attributed to the importer.