9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (2) TMI 922X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-appeal upheld, Revision application is thus rejected being devoid of merits - 380/21/DBK/2008-RA - 29/2010-Cus - Dated:- 8-2-2010 - Shri D.P. Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Janakiraman, Advocate, for the Assessee. [Order]. This revision application has been filed by the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House, Cochin against the order-in-appeal No. 150/2008 dated 22/29-5-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Customs House, Cochin in the matter arising out of order-in-original No. 02/2008, dated 25-1-2008 as passed by the jurisdictional M/s. Scan Geographical AS, Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein engaged in Geophysical Survey at the Port of Mumbai, Chennai and Cochin have imported certain additional Oil field equipment for the vessel M.V. Geo searcher and remitted the appropriate duties of Customs on the imported goods. After completing the worked the vessel sailed out from the port of Cochin on 5-11-2006. The above goods were exported under free shipping bills and later converted into drawback shipping bills under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962. The party represented before Commissioner of Customs who per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the act of exporter filling a free shipping bill in the EDI System that the goods were not presented before the Asstt. Commissioner for inspection. (iii) The observation of Commissioner (Appeal) that in the present case if anybody can be faulted it is the Asstt. Commissioner in charge of Docks - Exports who has not put his signature on the inspection reports. There is no Exports who has not put his signature on the inspection report There is no way that the applicant could force him to do that, is also not proper and has been made without proper appreciation of facts. Since the exporter had filed free shipping bills, there was no possibility of the shipping bills being routed to the Asstt. Commissioner after inspection. (iv) The contention of the exporter and the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the exporter is eligible for drawback since the goods have been identified by the Appraiser/Examiner is legally unsustainable and is against the statute. Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 mandates that the goods have to be identified to the satisfied of the Asstt/Deputy Commissioner of Customs for draw to be paid. (v) Commissioner (Appeal) has relied on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing bill into drawback shipping bill on merit and considering examination of goods by the appraiser and examination of goals by the appraiser and examiner and the factual/legal submissions as made therein and the lower authorities should consider the same without requiring them for doctrine of the possibility i.e. physical examination. (vi) that due to factual position that very same imported goods stands exported actually, the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) is unchallengeable. (vii) that the invoice and the banker s letter along with certified identity of the goods by the officer of customs shows re-export as unambiguous. (viii) that reliance of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on Hon ble High Court judgment in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 841 (Cal.) is more appropriate and further distinction drawn in Hon ble Tribunal case - 2007 (209) E.L.T. 252 (Tri. - Mum) is wholly incorrect. 5. The personal hearing in the case matter was fixed and held on 14-12-2009 which was attended by Sh. S. Janakiraman, Advocate for and on behalf of the respondent wherein while reiterating the facts of the revision application, it was stressed upon that the vessel along with oil ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 are also to be properly considered. In this case the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs has permitted the conversion from shipping to DBK shipping bills after actual/physical export of the impugned goods. Therefore while deciding the mater reliance has to be placed on all the available documents and the relevant submission/judgments. The original adjudicating authority has neither discussed all the import/export documents along with examination repot by the departmental officers nor has elaborated as to why all the above identity of the export goods as per free shipping bills as the same goods as imported under relevant bills of entry. 8. In this regard, Govt. further considering the details available in undisputed bills of entries, invoice, shipping bills having reports from examining/appraising officers of the department along with other correspondences and the particular nature of impugned re-exported goods is of the view that the respondents case is much strong than the revision application filed on basic ground of wording of only one of the applicable statue i.e. Section 74 (iii)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 without keeping in view the purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
