C.C. (Air Cargo Export), New Delhi vs New Tech Imports Pvt. Ltd

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A) CUS/604/2013 dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi].

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the

order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in

any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental

authorities?

__________________________________________________

C.C. (Air Cargo Export), New Delhi Appellant

Vs.

New Tech Imports Pvt. Ltd.  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri R.K. Grover, D.R.,

Present for the Respondent: Shri S.N.Panda, Advocate

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 29.04.2015

Date of Pronouncement:28.08.2015

Final ORDER NO.52727/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to this appeal are as follows:-

3. The importer (respondent herein) imported the 5 Nos. of bearings vide Bill of Entry No.3677638 dated 01.06.2011 and got those goods warehoused in public bonded warehouse at CWC, Okhla  II, New Delhi on 21.06.2011. Since the said imported goods were stored beyond the valid warehousing period without payment of duty, the Customs Department initiated proceedings for confiscation of the imported goods and for imposition of penalty on the importer. The matter was adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner of Customs vide order dated 16.04.2013 by confiscating the imported goods and imposing penalty on the respondent-importer. In appeal, the adjudication order was set aside by the commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order by holding that the said order is pre-mature since the request letter of the respondent-importer for extension of warehousing period has not been considered before adjudication of the matter. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the Revenue  appellant has filed the appeal before this Tribunal.

4. Heard the ld. Counsel for both the sides and perused the records.

5. I find from the available records that upon expiry of the warehousing period, the respondent importer vide its letter dated 04.09.2012, 07.09.2012, 16.03.2013 and 19.03.2013 had applied for the extension of warehousing period before the Jurisdictional Customs Authorities. However, the said letters of the respondent have not been forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi (the Competent Authority) for grant of extension of warehousing period. Since granting of extension of the warehousing period has not been considered by the competent authority, in my considered opinion, the proceedings initiated for is premature and the adjudication order in this regard was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

6. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) wherein while setting aside the adjudication order as premature, he has specifically directed for consideration of the request for extension of warehousing period and there after to adjudicate the case.

7. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant (Revenue) is dismissed.

(Pronounced in the open Court on 28.08.2015)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 4