2017 (7) TMI 273 - AT - Customs

Appeal allowed: Commissioner to reconsider representations. Order-in-Original not maintainable.

The appeal was allowed, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the representations in accordance with the High Court's order for the grant of permission ... Extension of warehousing period - it appeared to Revenue that the appellant importer failed to remove these goods during the warehousing period permitted under Section 61 of the said Act and instead left the goods warehoused after the expiry of warehousing period - Held that: - This matter was earlier heard on 11/01/2017 when we noticed that there appears to be no proper consideration and disposal of the direction of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the aforementioned writ petition by the learned Commissioner - the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 24 May, 2013 have not been complied with. As claimed by the Department in the said order in original, it appears the learned Commissioner have refused to comply with the order of the Hon'ble High Court stating that he cannot travel beyond the scope of show cause notice and therefore, refrain from examining the same. We have gone through the entire order in original and we have nowhere found any reference and/or consideration of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 24th may 2013. The order in original impugned herein is not maintainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Compliance with High Court directions in Order-in-Original, Extension of warehousing period, Permission for re-export of goods from bonded warehouse, Proper consideration of High Court directions by the Commissioner.Compliance with High Court directions in Order-in-Original:The appeal involved a question of whether the Order-in-Original dated July 4, 2013, passed by the Commissioner was in line with the directions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in writ tax petition No. 579 of 2013. The appellant, an importer, had imported spare parts for a Solar Thin-Film Line to support a SEZ unit. The goods were warehoused under bond, and issues arose regarding the warehousing period and duty payment. The High Court had directed the Commissioner to decide on the appellant's applications for re-export within a specified timeframe. However, the Commissioner's order did not reflect compliance with the High Court's directions, leading to the conclusion that the Order-in-Original was not maintainable.Extension of warehousing period:The appellant had executed double duty bonds in 2008, binding themselves to observe all provisions of the Customs Act. The Department communicated that the warehousing period for the goods covered in the bonds was one year under Section 61 of the Customs Act. Allegations were made that the appellant failed to remove the goods within the prescribed period, rendering them liable for penalties under Section 117 of the Customs Act. Despite the appellant's applications for extension and re-export, issues arose regarding the proper consideration and communication of decisions by the authorities, leading to legal complexities.Permission for re-export of goods from bonded warehouse:The appellant sought permission to re-export the goods from the bonded warehouse, citing reasons such as the completion of installations and the obsolescence of the imported spare parts. The Department issued a show cause notice demanding duty payment and proposed penalties under the Customs Act. The appellant's requests for re-export were pending decision, prompting legal actions and interventions, including moving the High Court for resolution. The High Court directed the Commissioner to decide on the re-export applications promptly, emphasizing compliance with legal procedures and timelines.Proper consideration of High Court directions by the Commissioner:The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Commissioner's handling of the High Court's directions, highlighting the failure to comply with the High Court's order dated May 24, 2013. The Commissioner's reluctance to examine matters beyond the scope of the show cause notice was deemed inadequate, indicating a lack of proper consideration of legal directives. The Tribunal concluded that the Order-in-Original was not maintainable, emphasizing the importance of adherence to judicial orders and procedural fairness in customs matters. The appeal was allowed, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the representations in accordance with the High Court's order for the grant of permission to re-export the goods still in the warehouse.