2023 (11) TMI 21 - AT - Customs

Re-export - Rejection of request for provisional release of the seized goods - Mis-declaration of goods - Evasion of Anti-dumping duty - rejection on the ground that the investigation was still under progress - It is submitted that order was placed for Polyester Coated Fabric (Polymeric Compound), but wrong goods dispatched by the foreign supplier - HELD THAT - It is not the case of the Revenue that the imported goods were either prohibited or forbidden or banned by any Foreign Trade Policies. Even if it is proved that it is a case of mis-declaration, the interest of the Revenue is always safeguarded by the undisputed fact of deposit of over Rs.2.37 crores by the appellant and in any case, there is no scope for re-valuation since the goods in question are not requested for clearance for home consumption, rather for re-export. The pleading of the appellant as to the acceptance by the foreign supplier on the wrong shipment as well as taking back the goods in question clearly shows the bona fides of the appellant, which are not at all doubted anywhere by the authorities below. There are no justifiable case made out by the authorities for not permitting the bona fide request for re-export of the seized goods and hence, we set aside the impugned order - the adjudicating authority is directed to accede to the request for provisional release of the seized goods forthwith after taking suitable bond and Bank Guarantee - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the early hearing of the appeal for provisional release of seized goods, classification of imported goods, anti-dumping duty, rejection of provisional release, jurisdiction of seizure, progress of investigation, financial interests, and re-export of goods.

Early Hearing and Provisional Release:
The application for early hearing was filed by M/s. Ocean Sky Impex Private Limited for the appeal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal. The appeal sought provisional release of the seized goods, and after hearing both parties, the Tribunal granted early hearing and proceeded with the appeal for final disposal.

Classification of Imported Goods and Anti-Dumping Duty:
The appellant had ordered "Polyester Coated Fabric (Polymeric Compound)" from a China-based company, but upon examination, the goods were classified differently by the Textiles Committee. The goods were proposed to be classified under different headings attracting Anti-Dumping Duty, which the appellant had already deposited. The goods were seized by the DRI and warehoused under the Customs Act.

Rejection of Provisional Release and Legal Proceedings:
The appellant requested provisional release for re-export of the goods, citing a mistake by the supplier in the shipped goods. Despite legal provisions and a High Court directive to decide on the release application, both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority rejected the request citing ongoing investigation.

Jurisdiction of Seizure and Financial Interests:
The appellant argued that the seizure was without jurisdiction due to the lack of a notice under Section 124(a) and that the deposited amount was sufficient to protect revenue interests. Delays in re-export could lead to financial losses, and the foreign supplier had agreed to take back the goods.

Tribunal's Decision and Disposal of Appeal:
After considering the contentions from both sides, the Tribunal found no justifiable reason to deny the request for re-export of the seized goods. The impugned order rejecting provisional release was set aside, and the adjudicating authority was directed to allow provisional release after suitable bond and Bank Guarantee. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.