TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal directs lenient reconsideration and ex post facto permission for re-export, setting aside duty demand.</h1> <h3>United Export Versus Commissioner of Customs (ICD), New Delhi</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the matter leniently and grant ex post facto permission for re-export within a ... Extension of time for re-export of goods - goods re-imported for reprocessing, etc. - N/N. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995 - Held that: - The N/N. 158/95-Cus. allows the normal period of 6 months for re-export and also empowers Commissioner of Customs to allow re-export within extended period not exceeding a further period for 6 months - We are not able to comprehend that when the fact of re-export of the goods is not in dispute how the duty of customs on the goods which have already been exported could be confirmed. The facts on record indicate that there have been circumstances like frequent electricity cut leading to delay in re-export of the goods which is beyond the permissible period of 6 months. The Commissioner of Customs is directed to reconsider the matter leniently to grant ex post facto permission for re-export within the further period of 6 months in terms of N/N. 158/95-Cus. - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Refusal of permission for extension of re-export period for goods re-imported for reprocessing under Notification No. 158/95-Cus.Analysis:The case involved the appellant, M/s. United Export, who re-imported 'Basmati rice' for re-export after reprocessing under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The appellant re-exported the goods without obtaining the Commissioner's permission, leading to a demand of Customs duty and interest. Despite appeals and remands, the Commissioner rejected the request for extension of the re-export period beyond six months. The appellant appealed to the Tribunal seeking an extension and waiver of the duty and interest.The appellant argued that circumstances like electricity cuts in Haryana were beyond their control, causing delays in re-export. They cited case laws to support their plea. On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the appellant did not apply for an extension within the prescribed time limit and should not receive ex post facto approval. They referred to a Delhi High Court decision supporting their stance.The Tribunal considered the submissions and case laws from both sides. It noted that the goods were re-exported within a year of importation but after the initial six-month period. The Commissioner's order highlighted the lack of authority for re-export after six months and the appellant's failure to apply for an extension timely. The Tribunal found it puzzling that duty was confirmed on goods already exported and noted the circumstances causing the delay. It directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter leniently and grant ex post facto permission for re-export within a further six-month period, setting aside the duty demand and interest. The decision was to be made within three months after a personal hearing for the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for a reconsideration of the extension request and the duty waiver based on the circumstances and legal provisions under Notification No. 158/95-Cus.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
