2024 (2) TMI 781 - HC - Customs

Benefit of the Customs Tariff Determination of Origin of Products under the Duty Free Tariff Preference Scheme for Least Developed Countries) Rules, 2015 - N/N. 96/2008-Custom, dated 13.08.2008 - benefit denied to the petitioner herein on the basis that there is no provision for third country invoicing in the relevant rules - HELD THAT - While reaching this conclusion, the appellate authority did not engage with the submissions of the petitioner, either by way of grounds or by way of oral submissions made during the hearing. Instead, it appears that the same conclusions that were recorded in paragraphs 16 and 19 of the original order were reproduced. Since the impugned appellate order was issued without dealing with contentions advanced by the petitioner, the impugned order calls for interference. Consequently, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority for reconsideration. The appellate authority is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and, thereafter, issue a reasoned order after duly dealing with all contentions raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge to an appellate order regarding exemption claimed in a bill of entry related to the Customs Tariff Preference Scheme for Least Developed Countries.

Comprehensive Details:

Issue 1: Exemption Claim
The petitioner, engaged in importing and trading teak wood, claimed exemption under the Customs Tariff Rules. The exemption request was initially denied by the second respondent, and the appeal against this denial led to the impugned order by the first respondent.

Issue 2: Grounds of Appeal
The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the appellate authority failed to consider the petitioner's reliance on Circular No.53/2020-Customs, allowing third country invoicing for goods originating from least developed countries. The counsel argued that the impugned order did not address these contentions adequately, instead reproducing parts of the original order without engaging with the petitioner's submissions.

Issue 3: Retrospective Application
The standing counsel for the respondents contended that Circular No.53/2020-Customs could not be applied retrospectively as it was issued after the bill of entry in question. This argument aimed to support the rejection of the exemption claim based on the timing of the circular.

Judgment Summary:
Upon examination, the court found that the impugned appellate order failed to address the contentions raised by the petitioner adequately. As a result, the court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration. The appellate authority was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and issue a reasoned order dealing with all contentions within two months. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.