TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the review petition disclosed any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the actual user condition in Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 could be enforced against goods still lying in customs bond and before filing of the bill of entry; (iii) whether the Customs authorities could override the clarification issued by the DGFT on the permissibility of re-export.
Issue (i): whether the review petition disclosed any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: Review lies only on the limited grounds of discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or another reason analogous to those grounds. The impugned order had been passed on a concession recorded by the Court, and the review petitioner did not demonstrate any error apparent or any genuinely new material warranting reconsideration.
Conclusion: The review petition disclosed no ground for interference and failed on this issue, against the review petitioner.
Issue (ii): whether the actual user condition in Notification No. 50/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 could be enforced against goods still lying in customs bond and before filing of the bill of entry.
Analysis: The notification operated only on goods imported into India. Import was held to be incomplete until the goods crossed the customs barriers and a bill of entry for home consumption was filed. As the gold dore bars remained in customs bond and had not yet been finally imported for home consumption, the actual user condition could not yet be invoked against the petitioner.
Conclusion: The actual user condition was inapplicable at that stage and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): whether the Customs authorities could override the clarification issued by the DGFT on the permissibility of re-export.
Analysis: In matters of interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy and import-export conditions, the DGFT's view carries primacy. The DGFT had clarified that gold was free for export and that the petitioner could seek further procedure only from the Customs authorities. The Customs authorities could not take a contrary view in review, especially when no prohibition against re-export was shown.
Conclusion: The DGFT clarification prevailed and the respondents could not deny re-export on that basis; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The Court found no basis to reopen the earlier order and upheld the permission already granted for re-export, leaving the review petitioner without relief.
Ratio Decidendi: A review cannot be used to reopen a consent order absent an error apparent or analogous ground, and an actual user condition in an import notification cannot be enforced before the import is legally complete and the competent trade authority has clarified the position.
TaxTMI 
