TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 371
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....). All three authorities held that the petitioner ("FICCI") is liable for payment of Rs. 4,85,735/- as Customs Duty and Rs. 9,714/- as Education Cess, and interest thereon as applicable under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act). 2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, the Central government by Notification No. 157/90-Customs, dated 28th March, 1990, gave effect to the "ATA Garnet System" in terms of the ATA Convention. The ATA Carnet system is an international customs document that allows the holder to temporarily (up to one year) import goods without payment of normally applicable duties and taxes, including value-added taxes. The Carnet eliminates the need to purchase temporary import bon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner received a letter from Customs Department stating that they had no record of re-exportation of the goods imported under the said Carnet. After considering the petitioner's representation, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs by order dated 29-4-2009 levied the impugned customs duty along with education cess and interest on the petitioner. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi which also rejected the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision application under Section 129DD of the Act with the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which also was unsuccessful. Thus, this writ petition. 4. The petitioner claimed that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nished during the proceedings. Therefore the Deputy Commissioner and the Appellate Commissioner acted reasonably in holding that there was no record or material to justify a finding that the carnet was filed in accordance with the agreed procedure. 6. This court has considered the impugned orders, and has also considered the arguments made. In connection with the proof of re-exportation, the third Respondent noted as follows : "Careful examination of this certificate reveals that this certificate pertains to ATA Carnet No. US 89/07-60057 and not to the one under dispute i.e. Carnet No. US 89/05-64919. The evidence in support of re-export of the goods under Carnet No. US 89/05-64919, thus, still remains elusive. On the other hand, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced before that authority too, even though while rejecting the claim the document was not adverted to. To the Court, the certificate issued by the US authorities appears to be a valid proof of re-exportation of the goods against the said Carnet. It is important to note that none of the authorities which dealt with the matter disbelieved the authenticity of the Certificate of Disposition. The observation by the third Respondent, which was confirmed by the first Respondent that the Certificate did not pertain to ATA Carnet No. 89/05-64919 but to another Carnet is ex facie incorrect. There is no mention of any other Carnet on the Certificate of Disposition, and it is clear that the same pertains to the Carnet under dispute. Moreover, we also ....