2020 (3) TMI 1065 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed on 22nd August 2017 on the ground that they had failed to re-export the re-imported goods in accordance with the notification no. 158/95-CUS dated 14th November 1995 - HELD THAT - According to the tribunal, the preventive officer had certified compliance when it ought to have been done by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, this alleged compliance with the condition was suspect before the tribunal. This is indicative of foul play - This Court is not empowered to reappraise these facts in this jurisdiction. There is no perversity in such finding. It is a plausible one. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Misinterpretation of notification leading to dismissal of appeal by tribunal, Compliance with conditions of notification, Examination of goods in the presence of proper officer, Alleged foul play in certification by preventive officer

Misinterpretation of notification leading to dismissal of appeal by tribunal:
The appellant's appeal before the tribunal was dismissed based on the grounds of failure to re-export the re-imported goods in accordance with a specific notification. The appellant argued that the tribunal had misinterpreted the notification and erroneously dismissed the appeal. The appellant claimed that they had scrupulously observed the conditions in the notification. However, the tribunal found discrepancies related to the changing of cartons and the examination of goods in the presence of the proper officer as mandated by the notification. The tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of these specific conditions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Compliance with conditions of notification:
The tribunal highlighted that the changing of cartons and the examination of goods for re-export should have been done in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner as per the notification. Compliance with these conditions was deemed essential to prevent misuse of the notification. The tribunal found that the alleged compliance with these conditions by the preventive officer raised suspicions of foul play, indicating a failure to adhere to the notification's requirements. The court acknowledged the importance of complying with the specified conditions to ensure the benefits of the notification.

Examination of goods in the presence of proper officer:
The court emphasized the significance of examining goods in the presence of the designated proper officer, such as the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, as mandated by the notification. The examination at a higher level was deemed crucial to prevent misuse of the notification and ensure the identification of re-exported goods. Failure to comply with this requirement not only defeated the purpose of the notification but also risked denial of the benefits associated with it. The court upheld the tribunal's finding regarding the necessity of examination by the proper officer, emphasizing the importance of following the notification's provisions.

Alleged foul play in certification by preventive officer:
The tribunal raised concerns about the certification of compliance by the preventive officer instead of the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner as required by the notification. This discrepancy led to suspicions of foul play and non-compliance with the notification's provisions. The court acknowledged the tribunal's findings regarding the improper certification and the potential implications of such actions. The court declined to reassess the facts presented, indicating that the tribunal's decision was plausible and not indicative of any perversity. As a result, the appeal and the connected stay application were dismissed based on the tribunal's findings and the failure to meet the conditions outlined in the notification.