2023 (9) TMI 87 - AT - Customs

Tribunal overturns rejection of extension for re-export of goods, citing violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the rejection of the appellant's application for extension of time for re-export of goods re-imported under Notification ... Rejection of request made for extension of time limit for re-export - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of N/N. 158/1995-Cus dated 14.11.1995, it is evident that the goods re-exported in terms of this notification could have been re-exported within six months from the date of re-importation or such extended period not exceeding further six months as Commissioner of Customs may allow. In this case the goods were given out of charge on 10.02.2022, accordingly the goods without any permission could have been re-exported by 9th August, 2022 and within a further period of six months from this date i.e. 09.02.2023 with the permission of the Commissioner. In the present case appellant has produced the goods for exportation by following the shipping bill dated 28.01.2023 and made application seeking extension of date for re-exportation vide his letter dated 03.02.2023. He has given sufficient justification for seeking such extension as the delay occurred on the account of ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine for which certain trade sanctions were imposed on trading with Russia. If this cannot be considered as a reason for granting the extension there could be no other justification for such extension as per notification whereby Commissioner has been authorized to grant extension by further six months. The order of the Commissioner not allowing such contention is without any justification and could not be sustainable. Impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether a communication rejecting a request for extension of time for re-exportation of goods re-imported under Notification No.158/1995-Cus (for repair/reconditioning) constitutes an appealable order. 2. Whether rejection of an application for extension of time under Notification No.158/1995-Cus without issuance of a show cause notice or opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice. 3. Interpretation of the conditions of Notification No.158/1995-Cus: whether the Commissioner's power to allow an extended period 'not exceeding a further period of six months' requires the applicant to seek extension within the initial six-month period, and whether delay caused by external factors (e.g., trade disruptions arising from war and sanctions) can justify grant of extension beyond six months. 4. Whether non-compliance with a purported implicit requirement to seek extension within six months disentitles the importer to the benefit of the notification and to non-forfeiture of bank guarantee. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Appealability of administrative communication rejecting extension request Legal framework: Orders or communications by revenue authorities affecting substantive rights (demand, denial of relief) are ordinarily subject to appeal under the relevant appellate mechanism. Principles and precedents establish that communications of administrative character which determine rights or obligations can be treated as appealable orders. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal treated similar administrative communications as appealable, relying on established decisions to that effect. Interpretation and reasoning: The impugned letter rejecting the extension request, issued by the Additional Commissioner with the approval of the Commissioner, operated to refuse relief sought and directed deposit of incentives/duties. Functionally, it adjudicated the applicant's claim and therefore constitutes an order against which appeal lies. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - administrative communications that decide rights and impose obligations are appealable. Conclusion: The communication rejecting the extension request is an appealable order and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Issue 2 - Violation of principles of natural justice by rejecting extension without hearing Legal framework: Basic tenets of administrative law require that when an adverse order is to be passed affecting an interested party's rights, the party must be afforded a hearing and, where appropriate, a show cause notice. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal noted that the impugned letter was issued in a perfunctory manner without show cause notice or opportunity of hearing; prior authorities support treating such deficiency as vitiating the order. Interpretation and reasoning: The rejection of the extension application was effected without affording the appellant any opportunity to explain circumstances or produce supporting material. Given the nature of the relief sought (exercise of discretionary power by Commissioner under the notification), denying hearing rendered the decision procedurally unfair. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - denial of opportunity of hearing in exercise of discretionary power under the notification constitutes violation of principles of natural justice and warrants setting aside of the decision. Conclusion: The impugned communication is vitiated for non-compliance with natural justice; it requires setting aside. Issue 3 - Interpretation of Notification No.158/1995-Cus: timing and scope of Commissioner's power to extend re-export period Legal framework: Notification No.158/1995 exempts duties on re-imported goods for repair/reconditioning subject to conditions including (i) reimportation within three years of exportation; and (ii) re-export within six months of reimportation or such extended period not exceeding a further six months as the Commissioner may allow. A bond/undertaking is executed to export within the stipulated period or face payment of duties. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal examined an earlier adjudicatory order (referred to as a Leather Sellers decision) which interpreted the notification to mean that the primary condition is re-export within three years of exportation and that nowhere does the notification expressly require seeking extension within the initial six months; that decision held failure to apply within six months did not automatically disentitle a party if re-export was ultimately within permissible limits and bona fide reasons existed. Interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal analyzed the plain text of the notification and concluded the Commissioner's discretion to allow a further period of up to six months is not expressly conditioned on an application being made within the first six months. The appellant produced reasons for delay - trade disruptions due to war and related sanctions affecting shipments to the buyer country, and delayed GR (bank) waiver - which the Tribunal found to be plausible and sufficient justification for granting extension. The Tribunal observed that the goods were put up for export and a shipping bill was filed prior to or around the time the extended period would expire with permission, and an extension application was filed. The order of the Commissioner refusing to consider these grounds and denying extension was held to be without justification and unsustainable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - the Commissioner's power to allow an additional period up to six months under the notification does not implicitly require that an extension application be filed within the initial six months; bona fide external difficulties (e.g., trade sanctions and shipment uncertainty) can justify grant of extension where the principal conditions of the notification (notably reimportation within three years) remain complied with. Conclusion: The notification should be construed to permit consideration of extension applications filed after expiry of the initial six months where legitimate and sufficient reasons exist; rejection solely on ground of delay in seeking extension (absent breach of main notification conditions) is unjustified. Issue 4 - Effect of alleged non-compliance (failure to seek extension within six months) on entitlement to notification benefits and bank guarantee Legal framework: Conditions for exempting duty under the notification include temporal limits and the bond undertaking; failure to comply can lead to duty being payable and enforcement against bank guarantee/bond. Precedent treatment: The Tribunal relied on and adopted reasoning from a prior order which held that when the fundamental condition of the notification (re-importation within three years) is met, mere failure to seek extension within six months - particularly where an extension was later applied for and there are bona fide reasons for delay - does not automatically disentitle the importer to benefits or justify forfeiture of bank guarantee. Interpretation and reasoning: Since the reimportation complied with the three-year condition and the appellant provided acceptable reasons for delay in re-export (external trade restrictions and delayed bank waiver), denial of the notification's benefit and direction to deposit incentives/duties was disproportionate. The Commissioner's refusal to forward or consider the extension application, and direction to deposit sums without hearing, amounted to an unsustainable exercise of discretion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - entitlement to the notification's benefit should not be defeated merely by delayed filing for extension where the primary conditions are complied with and reasonable cause for delay is shown; forfeiture of security or denial of benefit on that sole ground is not automatically warranted. Conclusion: The impugned communication ordering deposit of incentives/duties and rejecting extension on the ground of delay in application is unsustainable; bank guarantee forfeiture is not justified on these facts. Overall Conclusion and Disposition The Tribunal found the impugned communication to be appealable, procedurally flawed for denial of hearing, and substantively unsustainable because the notification does not mandate filing for extension within six months and the appellant presented reasonable grounds (trade sanctions and delayed GR waiver) for delay. The impugned communication was set aside and the appeal allowed.