2000 (4) TMI 364 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Consideration of stay application and miscellaneous application in appeal.
2. Acceptance of EPCG license after goods arrival and Customs warehouse status.
3. Validity of EPCG license submission and Customs duty exemption.
4. Appeal jurisdiction based on quasi-judicial functions of the Commissioner.
5. Assessment of EPCG license validity and Customs duty exemption availability.
6. Remand of the matter for detailed consideration by the Commissioner.

Analysis:

1. The Tribunal considered the stay application and miscellaneous application in the appeal. The stay application was deemed premature as the goods were still in Customs warehouse, leading to the consideration of the appeal itself due to the matter being concise.

2. The Senior Advocate argued for the acceptance of the EPCG license post-goods arrival and highlighted that the license was presented to Customs Authorities. He referenced relevant legal judgments to support the argument and criticized the Commissioner's order for lacking a hearing opportunity despite their representation.

3. The Departmental Representative contended that the Commissioner treated the order as appealable, emphasizing that once a Bill of Entry is assessed for home consumption, it cannot be warehoused or processed under an EPCG license again.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the appeal jurisdiction under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, stating that appeals lie against orders of an executive or administrative nature passed by the Commissioner in a quasi-judicial capacity. The impugned letter did not fulfill these criteria as it lacked a hearing and detailed analysis.

5. After considering submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the Senior Advocate's argument regarding the EPCG license's validity and Customs duty exemption. It noted that the goods were still in Customs custody, indicating that the EPCG license should not be rejected. The relevant date for duty assessment would be the ex-bonding date, and the Commissioner's position was deemed contrary to the law.

6. Due to the lack of detailed consideration by the Commissioner and absence of a personal hearing, the matter was remanded for the Commissioner to issue a speaking order in an adjudication capacity after hearing the assessees. The Commissioner was directed to complete the adjudication proceedings within four weeks from the order receipt, considering the pending Customs clearance of the goods.