2004 (9) TMI 399 - AT - Customs

Appellant wins appeal, avoids duty recovery after Tribunal decision on Bank Guarantee enforcement.

The appellant was required to pre-deposit a specific amount for the appeal hearing. An extension of the warehousing period was granted, but no further ... Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand Issues:1. Pre-deposit requirement for hearing the appeal.2. Extension of warehousing period and pending request for re-export.3. Disagreement on the enforcement of BG and recovery of duty amounts.4. Interpretation of relevant judgments and legal provisions.Analysis:1. The appellant was required to pre-deposit a specific amount for hearing the appeal. The warehousing period for the goods had expired, and an extension was granted for four years. However, no further extension was provided, leading to proceedings for duty recovery based on a Supreme Court judgment. The appellant argued that a pending request for re-export should prevent the confirmation of demands. The Commissioner did not agree, but the appellant complied with a penalty directive by depositing the required amount.2. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submission. The department had instructed the appellant to deposit a penalty for considering the re-export request, which was fulfilled. Therefore, the department should have decided on the re-export application before proceeding with duty recovery. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal restrained the department from recovering the amounts until a decision on the re-export request was made. The appellant's case was deemed strong, leading to the waiver of pre-deposit and a stay on recovery, with instructions not to enforce the BG.3. The learned Counsel relied on previous Tribunal judgments emphasizing that pending applications for extension of warehousing or re-export requests should delay duty confirmation. In contrast, the DR argued that duty recovery was justified once the warehousing period expired. The Tribunal sided with the appellant, emphasizing the need to safeguard the revenue's interest while granting the stay and directing the revenue not to enforce the BG.4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the appellant's compliance with the penalty directive and the department's failure to decide on the re-export request. The stay was granted, and the matter was scheduled for further hearing. The Tribunal considered the implications for both sides and ensured prompt communication of the stay order. The revenue was instructed not to enforce the BG, aligning with the Tribunal's interpretation of the legal provisions and relevant judgments.