TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 148X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant for further extension of time. The appellant had quoted Covid Pandemic as a reason for the impugned delay due to which the training with reference to imported survey model CMS-V-500 with accessories could not be completed by 20.03.2020 whereafter was the nationwide lockdown w.e.f. 24.03.2020. In the present case the extended time limit to re-export the goods expired on 21.12.2019. Though request for further extension was made on 18.12.2019 but the same was not accepted. Hence, the goods were required to be re-exported on 21.12.2019. By this date there was no COVID situation in India. The order of Supreme Court and the Ordinance of Ministry of Law and Justice give relief of time extension for such actions, under specified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - involving duty of Rs.266918/- on 22.08.2019 under the provisions of Notification No.04/2018 Cus. dated 18.01.2018. The said goods were imported under Carnet No.CA191214 valid till 25.07.2020 for the purpose of demonstration of Professional Equipments. However, as per the condition of the said Notification the said imported goods were to be exported out of India within two months of its importation. The appellant could not re-export the same within the aforesaid time. Hence vide letter dated 13.11.2019 requested permission for extension of Carnet period for another two months from their initial due date of export i.e. 21.10.2019. The said permission was granted extending a period of further two months for re-export of the said equipment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. I have heard Ms. Prabjyoti K. Chadha, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ishwar Charan, Authorised Representative for the Department. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the goods were imported under a Carnet for temporary admission of goods under Notification No.04/2018. The said Notification had no provision for confiscation. Otherwise also the said carnet was guaranteed by Federation of Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in India (FICCI) as per the provisions of Customs Convention on ATA Carnet for temporary admission of goods done at Brussels on 8th June, 1961. It is further submitted that the order demanding duty is liable to be set aside for the reason that the appellant has already exported the goods o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be re-exported in the stipulated time. Though the period could have been extended by the competent authority but in case of failure to re-export the goods within the period specified or extended as the case may be, FICCI and the importer were jointly and severally liable to pay the duties of Customs leviable on the goods as on date of import alongwith the applicable interest. It is submitted that in view of the said conditions, there is no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals). It is further impressed upon that once a benefit of a notification has been taken by the assessee, the terms and conditions therein have to be strictly complied with else the assessee has to face the consequences. For this reason also the impugned appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Other Laws (Relaxation of Certain Provisions) Ordinance, 2020 Section 3 thereof extends the time limit for completion or compliance of any required action to 30th day of June, 2020 or to such other date after June, 2020 as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf, provided the time limit for said action, under the specified Act, falls during the period from the 20th day of March, 2020, to the 29th June, 2020. 10. In the present case the extended time limit to re-export the goods expired on 21.12.2019. Though request for further extension was made on 18.12.2019 but the same was not accepted. Hence, the goods were required to be re-exported on 21.12.2019. By this date there was no COVID situation in India. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December. Though the request was moved for further extension but the same was not considered. It becomes clear when seen in the light of Notification No.04/2014 that the condition of said Notification gets violated and the goods on the date of the expiry of stipulated/ extended period were nothing but the imported goods. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order when the duty alongwith interest and penalty has been called for from the appellant (the same stands already deposited). 14. In view of entire above discussion, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) is hereby upheld. Since he has reduced the redemption fine from Rs.2.5 Lakhs to Rs.50,000/- and it is Rs.2.5 Lakhs which stands deposited by the appellant that the appellant shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
