TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 325X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xport – Considered that appellants have not made this plea either before adjudicating authority or before appellate authority – Since period of five years were lapsed from date of first import under Bill of Entry, there is merit in appellant's plea as very purpose for which they have imported goods has not been served – Therefore application for amendment allowed. Regarding stay application, goods are already under custody of customs and has also undertaken that they will not clear goods so, there is no question of stay of operation of impugned order – stay granted. - C/MISC/42553/2014, C/40941/2014, C/MISC/41613-41614/2014, C/41345-41346/2014 - MISC ORDER NO.40732-40734/2015 - Dated:- 8-5-2015 - R Periasami, Member (T) And P. K. Chou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 07.2012 set aside the entire OIO and allowed both the appeals. 3.Aggrieved by the above order, Revenue filed appeals before this Tribunal. Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 40265 40266/2013 dated 17.07.2013 remanded the matter to the original authority for fresh consideration. 4.Appellant filed C.M.A.No. 2780 2781/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras against the above remand order passed by this Tribunal. Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 20.08.2013 disposed the CMA with the direction to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh order. 5.The adjudicating authority in his denovo order dated 27.12.2013 confirmed the demand of ADD and also imposed penalties similar to the OIO. Appellants filed appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty seeking for re-export of the goods. Considering the lapse of time for the purpose for which the goods were intended, they are now intended to re-export to the supplier. He relied upon the following decisions in this regard: - ZTE Corporation Vs. CC (Import Gen.) 2014 (304) ELT 35 (Del.) - Wrigley India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2009 (234) ELT 173 (Tri.-Chen.) 7. On the other hand, Ld. AR for the Revenue submits that part of the goods already cleared on 29.12.2009, which has already entered into the market, which amounts to injury caused to domestic entry. He also submits that the goods were imported in the year 2009 and adjudication was made on 08.05.2012 and the appellants never made any plea before the adjudicating autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods has not been served. Therefore, they sought to amend their prayer to allow them to re-export the imported goods. The appellants relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of ZTE Corporation (supra) this Tribunal's order in the case of Wrigley India (supra), wherein re-export was permitted by the Tribunal even though similar prayer was not made before the lower authorities. We find that the said case is not directly related to ADD whereas Hon'ble High Court has allowed to re-export in the above cases where the original importer has abandoned the goods and the supplier came forward to re-export. The application for amendment is allowed and we make it clear that this amendment is subject to final o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
