2024 (5) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Warehousing period extension granted for COVID-19 delayed re-export of imported insulated glass units without penalties

M/s. Velankani Information Systems Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

CESTAT Bangalore allowed appeal seeking extension of warehousing period due to COVID-19 pandemic for re-export of imported insulated glass units. The ... Seeking extension of the warehousing period due to COVID-19 pandemic and to permit re-export - without insisting for payment of duty, interest and without imposing fine and penalty - Import of insulated Glass Unit with accessories for a multi-storied office building project - HELD THAT:- The issue in the present appeal is limited to illegality in clearance of bonded warehouse goods within the stipulated period of time. As per the impugned order, it is evident that the appellant made a request for extension of period and pleaded that there is no willful negligence on the part of appellant to clear the goods during the warehousing period and it is only due to the COVID-19 situation. As per the Circular issued by the Board circular 3/2003 dated 14.01.2003. From the above Circular and considering the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for extension of Limitation [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER], when a request is made especially in a situation like COVID-19 and where there is no allegation of any fraud of willful omission on the part of importer, the respondent ought to have allowed re-export of goods without insisting for payment of duty, interest and without imposing fine and penalty. Thus, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The respondent is directed to allow re-export of goods within a period of 3(three) months from the receipt of the Final Order without insisting for payment of duty, interest, fine and penalty. Issues involved: The judgment deals with the illegality in clearance of bonded warehouse goods within the stipulated period of time due to the impact of COVID-19 pandemic. Details of the judgment: Issue 1: Extension of warehousing period due to COVID-19 pandemic The appellant sought extension of the warehousing period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the respondent rejected the request and issued a show cause demanding duty and interest. The Adjudication Authority proceeded with adjudication proceedings and issued an Order-in-Original. The appellant filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) who modified the order by reducing the fine and penalty. The appellant argued that the warehousing period extension should have been granted due to the unforeseen situation caused by the pandemic. Issue 2: Re-export of goods and applicability of legal provisions The appellant, after being unable to proceed with the project due to COVID-19, sought to re-export the goods. The appellant cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the extension of limitation due to the pandemic. The appellant also referred to Circular No. 3/2003, which allows re-export of goods even after the expiry of the bonding period. The appellant argued that demand of duty, interest, fine, and penalty is unsustainable in the absence of fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. Issue 3: Compliance with statutory conditions and clearance of goods The impugned order highlighted the appellant's request for an extension of the warehousing period, citing no willful negligence but attributing the delay to the COVID-19 situation. The Circular issued by the Board emphasized that re-export requests may be allowed even after the expiry of the bonding period, provided the warehousing period is extended. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court supported the appellant's request for re-export without payment of duty, interest, fine, and penalty. Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The respondent was directed to permit re-export of goods within three months from the receipt of the Final Order without insisting on payment of duty, interest, fine, and penalty.