Locus standi in re-export disputes: foreign supplier could not challenge refusal while import goods were under mis-declaration investigation.

A foreign supplier lacked locus standi to challenge refusal of re-export permission for goods imported through an Indian importer. The Tribunal noted that the consignment had been declared as dyed processed cotton fabrics, but inspection and investigation suggested corduroy fabrics, affecting tariff classification and the claimed duty-free benefit. It also relied on the importer's earlier admission of mis-declaration, the later retraction, and the pending departmental investigation and show cause proceedings. In these circumstances, the appeal was treated as an attempt to delay inquiry and adjudication, and no appellate interference was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the foreign supplier had locus standi to challenge rejection of the request for re-export of the imported fabrics and whether the Tribunal should interfere when the import transaction was under investigation for alleged mis-declaration and fraudulent import.

Analysis: The appeal was by the foreign supplier, while the goods had been imported and cleared through the Indian importer. The record showed that the consignment had been declared as dyed processed cotton fabrics, but inspection and investigation indicated that the goods were corduroy fabrics, attracting a different tariff classification and rendering the claimed duty-free benefit inapplicable. The importer had admitted lapse and mis-declaration in an earlier statement, later retracted it, and thereafter avoided further investigation. The Tribunal also noted the ongoing departmental investigation and the show cause proceedings already initiated against the importer. In these circumstances, the Tribunal held that the appeal appeared to be an attempt to delay investigation and adjudication, and that the supplier had no proper locus standi to seek interference in the matter.

Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of re-export permission was not entertained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A person without a direct legal stake in the import proceedings cannot seek appellate interference against rejection of re-export permission, especially where the goods are under investigation for mis-declaration and fraudulent import.

---