2017 (4) TMI 484 - AT - Customs

100% EOU - Extension of warehouse period - permission to re-export the goods - The grievance of the appellant is that such decision was communicated to them without giving any reasons thereof and without giving opportunity to be heard in person or through written representation - whether present appeal is maintainable in terms of Section 129A of the CA, 1962? - Held that - This Tribunal is a creature of statute and has therefore to act clearly within its bounds. Hence an appeal against the impugned letter that is not recognized vide the provisions of Section 129A ibid cannot be entertained by this Tribunal - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Rejection of extension of warehousing period and permission to re-export goods without proper reasoning and opportunity to be heard.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the appeal under Section 129A
The appellant appealed against a letter from an Additional Commissioner of Central Excise rejecting their request for extension of warehousing period. The tribunal noted that the appeal did not fall under the specified categories in Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. As the tribunal is bound by statute, an appeal against a non-adjudicating authority's decision cannot be entertained. Therefore, the appeal was deemed not maintainable. However, the appellant was advised to return after the conclusion of proceedings if necessary, provided the appeal falls within the ambit of Section 129A.

Issue 2: Rejection of extension of warehousing period without proper reasoning
The appellant's grievance was that the decision to reject the extension of warehousing period and permission to re-export goods was communicated without providing reasons or an opportunity to be heard. The appellant cited a judgment from the High Court of Mumbai where authorities were directed to pass a fresh order after giving the appellants an opportunity to be heard. The appellant also referred to other decisions supporting their position. On the other hand, the Revenue mentioned that the appellant had destroyed the goods without authorization and issued a Show Cause Notice for unpaid import duty. The tribunal directed the department to adjudicate the Show Cause Notice, ensuring the appellant is given a full opportunity to present their case and access relevant documents and test reports.

In conclusion, while the appeal was dismissed due to maintainability issues, the tribunal directed the department to proceed with the Show Cause Notice, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.