2023 (9) TMI 87 - AT - Customs

Rejection of request made for extension of time limit for re-export - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - From the perusal of N/N. 158/1995-Cus dated 14.11.1995, it is evident that the goods re-exported in terms of this notification could have been re-exported within six months from the date of re-importation or such extended period not exceeding further six months as Commissioner of Customs may allow. In this case the goods were given out of charge on 10.02.2022, accordingly the goods without any permission could have been re-exported by 9th August, 2022 and within a further period of six months from this date i.e. 09.02.2023 with the permission of the Commissioner. In the present case appellant has produced the goods for exportation by following the shipping bill dated 28.01.2023 and made application seeking extension of date for re-exportation vide his letter dated 03.02.2023. He has given sufficient justification for seeking such extension as the delay occurred on the account of ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine for which certain trade sanctions were imposed on trading with Russia. If this cannot be considered as a reason for granting the extension there could be no other justification for such extension as per notification whereby Commissioner has been authorized to grant extension by further six months. The order of the Commissioner not allowing such contention is without any justification and could not be sustainable. Impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the rejection of the application for extension of time for re-export of goods re-imported under Notification No.158/1995-Customs, violation of principles of natural justice in issuing the rejection letter, and the interpretation of conditions for re-export under the said notification.

Issue 1: Rejection of Application for Extension of Time:
The appellant had re-imported goods for repair and sought an extension of time for re-export due to ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine affecting trade. The rejection of the extension application by the Commissioner without proper justification was challenged. The Tribunal observed that the rejection was issued without affording the appellant an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The rejection was set aside on this ground.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Conditions for Re-export under Notification No.158/1995-Customs:
The appellant had re-imported goods under Notification No.158/1995-Customs and filed for an extension of time for re-export, citing trade restrictions due to the war. The Tribunal analyzed the conditions for re-export under the notification, noting that goods could be re-exported within six months of re-importation or with an extension of up to six months as allowed by the Commissioner. The appellant applied for an extension after the initial six-month period, justifying the delay due to trade uncertainties. The Tribunal referred to a similar case where seeking extension within six months was not a requirement if the main condition of re-export within three years of re-importation was met. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the rejection and set it aside, allowing the appeal.