9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tificate of Disposition. Moreover, we also notice that the Letter of Evidence dated 24-6-2009 issued by USCIB to the petitioner clarifies that the goods had been re-exported. The findings of the respondents were therefore unjustified and unreasonable, as the Appellate Commissioner and the revisional authority failed to take into account relevant and material facts. - Decided in favor of assessee. - W.P. (C) No. 7276 of 2011 and C.M. Appl. No. 16512 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 6-8-2012 - S. Ravindra Bhat and R.V. Easwar, JJ. Shri Sushil Kr. Sharma, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri Satish Kumar, SCC, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This writ petition challenges an order dated 15-2-2011 by the Department of Revenue (the first res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the guaranteeing association for ATA Carnet in India. The notification exempts the goods covered under the ATA Carnet system which are imported into India, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon. The notification issued by the Central Government requires that the said goods be re-exported back within a period of six months from the date of importation. In case of failure to do so, the customs duty leviable on the goods as on the date of clearance shall be paid by the guaranteeing association i.e. the petitioner. 3. The present case relates an ATA Carnet, i.e. No. US 89/05-64919 issued by the United States Council for International Business (USCIB), the national issuing and guaranteeing association for in the US, to M/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was valid proof of re-exportation under Article 8 of the ATA Convention. Counsel further stated that by the time this Certificate of Disposition could be arranged, the matter had already been adjudicated by Customs Department. Counsel further submitted that this Certificate of Disposition was produced as a proof of re-exportation before all the three respondents; however, all three authorities did not give any weight to it, and denied the petitioner the deserved relief. 5. Counsels for the respondents 1-3, on the other hand, raised the common argument that no fault could be found with the three impugned orders. It was contended that the orders were valid in law, and that the non-reliance on the Certificate of Disposition as a proof of re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess to regularize the dispute and if payment is required the same be communicated to them. In this evidence letter dated 20-11-2007 too, I do not find anything that goes to prove re-exportation of the goods imported under Garnet 89/05-64919. Thus, under the facts and circumstance of the case as they are, I am not inclined to accept eith the certificate of disposition or the evidence letter dated 20-11-2007 from the United State Council for International Business, in support of re-exportation of the goods concerned under ATA Carnet No. US 89/05-64919 as the same do not contain any evidence to the said effect. This view was confirmed by Respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 2, in its order, did not even mention that the Certificate of Disposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
