TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of KAUSALYA IMPEX VERSUS CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [ 2001 (6) TMI 73 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] held that when the goods are freely importable, refusing the request to re-export is not legal or proper. The goods in the present case are freely importable and not prohibited goods. The appellant has undertaken not to contest the classification, description or quantity of the goods. The appellant has also made payment of Rs.50 lakhs. After appreciating these facts and following the ratio laid in the above decisions, refusal to provisionally release the goods for the purpose of re-export only is not justified. The impugned order (letter refusing to provisionally release the goods for re-export) is set aside. The adjudicating authority is directed to consider the request of the importer-appellant for provisional release of the goods for re-export only within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, subject to reasonable conditions, if necessary, for safeguarding the revenue. Appeal allowed. - CUSTOMS APPEAL No.40003 of 2023 - FINAL ORDER NO. 40142 / 2023 - Dated:- 15-3-2023 - MS. SULE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Basic Customs duty and Anti-Dumping duty. The appellant made deposit Rs.50,00,000/- vide TR-6 challan dated 19.10.2022 towards the duty liability pending decision with regard to provisional release of the goods. The goods were permitted to be warehoused as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant made enquiries with their overseas supplier and was informed that due to mistake wrong consignments were loaded from their factory. The said supplier also offered that the appellant either accept goods or re-export the same back to the supplier. 6. The appellant then vide letter dated 13.11.2022 made a request for provisional release of the goods. The appellant did not receive any reply. As there was no decision passed on the request and the department having re-determined the assessable value, it was unviable for the appellant to accept the offer of supplier to get the goods released for home consumption. The appellant then vide letter dated 10.12.2002 requested the department to permit to re-export the goods. 7. The adjudicating authority vide letter dt. 09.01.2022 issued under File No. CUS /APR /S49 /534 /2022-GR-3 rejected th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. 13. The Ld. A.R Ms. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram appeared and argued for the department. 14. Heard both sides. 15. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that samples have been drawn and sent for testing to the Textile Committee. The report has been received on the basis of which the goods have been seized. There is misdeclaration of the goods as to their description, classification and quantity. The Ld. Counsel has submitted that the appellant has undertaken not to contest the classification, identity and quantity of the goods in the proceedings. The Ld. A.R has not been able to put forth any reason as to the necessity to still keep the goods in custody. The request is to provisionally release the goods for re-export only. We also take note that the appellant has paid Rs.50 lakhs. 16. The Tribunal in the case of Rajkamal Industrial Pvt. Ltd. (supra) had occasion to consider a similar issue and it was observed as under : 5 . On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of the record, we find that limited prayer of the appellant is for provisional release of the goods and that too for re-export of goods. We find that the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th law. In the present case the appellant s prayer is for provisional release for re-export of the goods and not for home consumption. We do not find any reason why the re-export of the goods can be denied particularly when the same is not going to adversely affect the adjudication process of the case. As per the above discussion we are of the view that the provisional release of the goods for re-export can be allowed subject to the reasonable measures for safeguarding the Revenue. 7 . Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. Since, appellant has already suffered huge amount of demurrage charges and the same is recurring, in the interest of justice, the adjudicating authority is directed to order for provisional release of goods for re-export within a period of one month from this order. 17. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kausalya Impex (supra) held that when the goods are freely importable, refusing the request to re-export is not legal or proper. The relevant para reads as under : 21 . Admittedly the goods imported by the petitioner are not contraband goods nor goods covered under the negative list either. The goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
