9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 625X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entures General Trading LLC of Dubai, UAE, under a commercial invoice No. RVGT0019541/2018, dated 25-2-2018. The goods have been imported at Inland Container Depot, Valvada, for which a Bill of Entry No. 5574760, dated 14-3-2018 has also been filed by the petitioner seeking clearance of the goods for home consumption. In the Bill of Entry, the goods were shown as classifiable under S.H. No. 3701 30 00 of the Customs Tariff, and since Anti-Dumping Duty @ 0.22 US Dollars per kilogram had been leviable on the goods covered by the above referred classification of S.H. No. 3701 30 00 of the Customs Tariff by virtue of Notification No. 25/2014-Cus. (ADD), dated 9-6-2014 the petitioner has shown such Anti-Dumping Duty also in the Bill of Entry for payment thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that when the goods were brought at ICD, Valvada and were opened by the Custom Officers, a few stickers were found on some of the boxes in the pallets indicating that the goods were allowed to be re-exported by the Customs authorities of Nhava Sheva Port in Raigad District of Maharashtra; and therefore, the Custom Officers caused inquiries and found that the concerned goods were imported by one M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of Rs. 16,00,000/-. The petitioner also paid/deposited all the duties leviable on the goods including anti-dumping duty in accordance with the higher rate laid down vide Notification No. 51/2012-Cus. (ADD). The petitioner submitted a letter dated 12-7-2018 informing the third respondent that all the conditions of provisional release of the goods were complied with; and a request was made to assess the above referred Bill of Entry No. 5574760, dated 14-3-2018 provisionally and also for allowing provisional release of the goods. It is the case of the petitioner that it has complied with all the conditions laid down by the Customs authorities for release of the goods, and no liability remains to be discharged by the petitioner and that the goods are therefore liable to be cleared from Customs area. 3.6 However, since the goods lying at ICD, Valvada from March, 2018 are Offset Printing Plates, which are coated and covered by chemicals, and such chemicals evaporate over a period of time, thereby rendering the goods, namely, Positive Offset plates, unusable for printing purpose and the market for such printing plates in India is limited, the petitioner is not in a position to lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the Customs Act. 4.1 Reference was made to sub-section (25) of Section 2 of the Customs Act which defines "imported goods" to mean any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption. It was submitted that in this case, the goods having been already cleared for home consumption are no longer imported goods and hence, the respondents are not justified in not permitting the export of such goods which are otherwise freely exportable. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Nirzar Desai, Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, reiterated the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the second and third respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner imported the same cargo at a different port before importing at ICD, Valvada and again misdeclared in respect of Computer to Conventional Plates (CtCP) with an intent to evade payment of levy of anti-dumping duty at the rate of 4.87 USD per square metre as per the provisions of Notification No. 51/2012-ADD, dated 3-12-2012. It was submitted that therefore, in such matters where any importer has misdeclared the goods with an inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been cleared for home consumption. On behalf of the respondents, the only contention raised is that in order to deter the petitioner from committing the same irregularities again, the permission to export the goods does not deserve to be granted. In the opinion of this Court, unless there is a statutory bar against export of such goods or the petitioner otherwise does not satisfy any statutory requirement for export of such goods, it is not permissible for the respondent authorities to deny the request of the petitioner for granting permission to export the goods. 8. On behalf of the respondents, the Learned Senior Standing Counsel has not been able to point out any statutory provision under which, with a view to deter the petitioner from repeating any similar irregularities in future, the respondents can prevent the petitioner from exporting the goods in question, which are no longer imported goods and are otherwise freely exportable goods. Under the circumstances, the impugned communication, dated 29-11-2018 informing the petitioner that its request for re-export of the goods has been rejected, cannot be sustained. In fact the use of the expression "re-export" is contrary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
