Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1 - AT - CustomsDuty Drawback - Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - re-export of imported Oil Well Equipment after completion of the project in India - pilferage - rejection of duty drawback - imposition of penalty - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The Appellants claimed that some goods have been pilfered and they have lodged a police complaint. Therefore, it is evident from the records of the case that identity of at least part of the goods has been established by the report of the experts i.e. Intertek. To this extent one should not have any doubt regarding the admissibility of re-export of the imported goods - it is not the case of the department that the imported goods have been sold or diverted and some other goods were presented for export. No evidence to that extent has been adduced by Revenue. The only question that was raised was with reference to the establishment of identity and the same is answered by the report of Intertek in respect of the goods mentioned in their report. Therefore, the issue of admissibility of drawback on the goods re-exported is settled in the appellants favour. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the imports have occurred during July to September 2010; initially the goods were put for export by filing shipping bills on 01.12.2010. The goods could not be exported due to the objections raised by the department and the Show Cause Notice issued and the subsequent proceedings in the Tribunal. After fulfilling the conditions laid down by the Tribunal customs have allowed the goods to be re-exported on 08.02.2013; LEO was issued on 29.03.2013 and goods were finally exported on 13.04.2013. It is not the case of the department that the goods presented for export on 01.12.2010 and goods which were exported finally on 13.04.2013 are not different. Therefore, the time period of two years requires to be reckoned up to the initial filing of the shipping bills i.e. 01.12.2010 and not the date on which LEO was given after prolonged litigation. It is a settled principle of law that while computing the limitation time taken for litigation should be excluded. In view of the same, we find that he Appellants cannot be put to jeopardy due to the objections raised by the department which to a greater extent got nullified by the report of Intertek, the exports appointed for this purpose. Therefore, we are inclined to consider the submissions of the Appellants that the reexport should be treated as made in time and drawback should be allowed to the extent of the part of the goods that were actually reexported. The goods shall be treated as re-exported within time. Lower authorities are directed consider appellants request to grant drawback to the extent of goods actually re-exported - Appeal allowed.
|