2019 (9) TMI 1114 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of Reference application - substantial question of law involved or not - HELD THAT - On perusal of the questions, it appears to us that they are routine legal issues which arise out of orders passed by the tribunal. No substantial question of law is involved. The tribunal has taken a possible view. More than 25 years have elapsed after the order of the tribunal. In those circumstances, we are not willing to take notice of those routine ordinary questions of law raised in the terms of reference, answer them, set aside the order of the tribunal and direct the tribunal to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with our answers. That exercise is not warranted - reference application dismissed.

Issues:
1. Tribunal's authority to pass orders without considering legal provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for levy of import duty on ships stores.
2. Tribunal's consideration of specific provisions of Customs Act, 1962 in passing orders.
3. Compliance with duty drawback formalities for refund of duty paid on re-exported stores.
4. Applicability of Customs Act provisions and regulations on refund of duty paid on re-exported stores without submitting shipping bill.

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised questions on whether the tribunal can pass orders without considering legal provisions for import duty on ships stores. The Court examined the terms of reference and found them to be routine legal issues arising from tribunal orders, with no substantial question of law involved. The tribunal's view was considered possible, and due to the considerable time elapsed since the tribunal's order, the Court declined to set aside the order based on these routine questions.

2. The second issue focused on the tribunal's consideration of specific provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 in passing orders. The Court noted the tribunal's reliance on Section 86(i) of the Act while declaring certain public notices ultra vires. However, it was argued that the tribunal should have considered additional provisions like Sections 86, 87, and 88 along with Imported Stores Regulations. The Court deliberated on the importance of considering various provisions in making a final decision on such matters.

3. Regarding compliance with duty drawback formalities for refund of duty on re-exported stores, the third issue questioned the tribunal's decision to refund duty without observing drawback formalities. The Court highlighted the significance of Section 88 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for duty refund through drawback procedures. It emphasized the importance of complying with the provisions for identifying and exporting duty-paid goods for claiming relief under Section 74 of the Act.

4. The final issue addressed the applicability of Customs Act provisions and regulations on refund of duty paid on re-exported stores without submitting a shipping bill. The Court examined whether the refund granted by the tribunal without the submission of a shipping bill was legally sound. It considered the relevance of Sections 86, 87, and 88 of the Act, as well as the Imported Stores Regulations, in determining the eligibility for duty refund on stores re-exported from a vessel converted to foreign run.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the reference application, stating that the routine legal issues raised did not warrant setting aside the tribunal's order after a significant period had passed since the original decision.

← Previous Next →