1995 (3) TMI 245 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of name of the appellant company during the appeal process.
2. Enforcement of bond for non-compliance with re-export condition.
3. Request for extension of time to re-export goods.
4. Invocation of bank guarantee by the Additional Collector.
5. Appeal against the order demanding payment of Customs duty.

Analysis:

1. Change of Name:
The appellant company filed an appeal against an order enforcing a bond for Customs duty. During the appeal, they requested a change of name to M/s. Mekaster Overseas Communication Pvt. Ltd., which was allowed by the tribunal after submission of necessary documents.

2. Enforcement of Bond:
The appellant, M/s. Alcatel India Ltd., imported telecommunication equipment for an exhibition under duty-free import conditions. However, they failed to re-export the goods within the stipulated time, leading to the enforcement of a bond for Customs duty payment. The tribunal considered the circumstances and granted an extension for re-export, allowing consequential benefits upon verification of goods exported.

3. Extension of Time Request:
The appellant company sought an extension of time for re-exporting the goods due to delays caused by sending original import documents to their suppliers in France. Despite extending the bank guarantee, the Additional Collector directed payment of duty and invoked the guarantee. The tribunal, after hearing arguments, allowed the appeal and granted an extension for re-export with consequential benefits upon verification of export.

4. Invocation of Bank Guarantee:
The Additional Collector invoked the bank guarantee and demanded payment of duty as the goods were not re-exported within the specified period, even after an extension. The Departmental Representative supported this action, stating that the duty was recovered as per the conditions of duty-free import subject to re-export within six months.

5. Appeal Against Duty Payment Order:
The appellant appealed against the order demanding payment of Customs duty, arguing that they were unable to re-export due to delays in obtaining duplicate documents. The tribunal, after considering submissions and records, allowed the appeal, granting an extension for re-export and providing consequential benefits upon confirmation of goods exported.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, granting an extension for re-export of goods and providing consequential benefits regarding the duty recovered under the bank guarantee, subject to verification of goods exported by the Department.