2016 (3) TMI 555 - AT - Customs

Validity of Commissioner (Appeals) order - Time for re-export extended - Imported goods on 3.12.2012 under A.T.A. Carnet valid upto 15.5.2013 but importer requested for extension of A.T.A. Carnet for export which is opposed by the department - Held that - the proviso to clause 4 to the notification provides that Government can extend the period of re-export by six months if it is necessary to do so in public interest. While issuing show cause notice, the provision of notification No. 157/90 ibid must be interpreted by the authorities below. As the provision of notification were interpreted in true sense, no show cause notice was required to be issued to the respondent. Therefore, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has interpreted the provision of notification correctly and extended the time for re-export. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Extension of time for re-export under A.T.A. Carnet
- Interpretation of Notification No. 157/90-Cus dated 28.3.1990
- Confiscation and penalty for retaining goods beyond prescribed time

Extension of Time for Re-export under A.T.A. Carnet:
The case involved the issue of whether the period for re-export of goods under an A.T.A. Carnet can be extended beyond the initial validity period. The respondent had imported goods under an A.T.A. Carnet valid until a certain date but requested an extension for re-export beyond that date. The Revenue contended that the re-export period cannot be extended, leading to a show cause notice for non-compliance with the Customs Convention on the ATA Carnet. The adjudicating authority upheld the proposal, but the learned Commissioner (Appeals) considered the extension request and set aside the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Notification No. 157/90-Cus dated 28.3.1990, which allowed for a six-month extension if deemed necessary in the public interest. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner correctly interpreted the notification, leading to the upheld extension of time for re-export.

Interpretation of Notification No. 157/90-Cus dated 28.3.1990:
The Tribunal delved into the specifics of Notification No. 157/90-Cus dated 28.3.1990, which provided exemptions for specified goods imported for display or use at specified events under certain conditions. The notification outlined requirements for goods imported under an A.T.A. Carnet, including conformity to specified criteria and the obligation to re-export within a prescribed period. Importantly, the notification allowed for a potential extension of the re-export period by six months if deemed necessary in the public interest. The Tribunal emphasized that the correct interpretation of this notification was crucial in determining the validity of the extension granted by the Commissioner, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Confiscation and Penalty for Retaining Goods Beyond Prescribed Time:
The issue of confiscation and penalty arose due to the respondent retaining the imported goods beyond the stipulated re-export deadline. The Revenue argued for confiscation and penalty imposition based on non-compliance with the notification's provisions. However, the Commissioner, after considering the extension request and the provisions of the notification, set aside the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal, after reviewing the case and the correct interpretation of the notification, found no infirmity in the Commissioner's decision. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the extension of time for re-export and negating the confiscation and penalty.