Skip to content


D.G.M. Textiles Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Decided On

Case Number

Appeal No. C/ROA/71 of 2012 & C/385 of 2011 [Arising Out of Order-in-Appeal C.Cus.No.626 of 2011 dated 8.9.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai]

Judge

Appellant

D.G.M. Textiles

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Excerpt:


customs act, 1962 - section 129e; .....vide final order no.776/2012 dated 29.6.2012 for noncompliance of pre-deposit direction given by the tribunal as per section 129e of the customs act, 1962.  this order dt. 29.6.12 was an ex-parte order. the applicant was suffering from jaundice during may 2012 and june 2012 and that was the reason why he could not appear before the tribunal.  further, it is submitted that applicant had filed restoration application on 29.11.2012 which is presently under consideration. 2. the matter relates to imports made under advance license no. 321003061 dated 19-10-2005 with export obligation as a condition to be satisfied after import. for discharging the obligation, the appellant should have produced export obligation discharge certificate (eodc) from dgft which they failed to produce before lower authorities during the proceedings leading to the order challenged in the appeal. consequently, the duty foregone at the time of import has been confirmed by lower authorities. after filing the restoration application, applicant has obtained export obligation discharge certificate (eodc) vide letter f.no.32/21/040/0152/am06 dated 25.10.2013.  therefore, the submission of the counsel for.....

Judgment:


1. The applicant has filed this application for restoration of Appeal No. C/385/2011 which was dismissed vide Final order No.776/2012 dated 29.6.2012 for noncompliance of pre-deposit direction given by the Tribunal as per section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.  This order dt. 29.6.12 was an ex-parte order. The applicant was suffering from Jaundice during May 2012 and June 2012 and that was the reason why he could not appear before the Tribunal.  Further, it is submitted that applicant had filed restoration application on 29.11.2012 which is presently under consideration.

2. The matter relates to imports made under Advance License No. 321003061 dated 19-10-2005 with export obligation as a condition to be satisfied after import. For discharging the obligation, the appellant should have produced Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from DGFT which they failed to produce before lower authorities during the proceedings leading to the order challenged in the appeal. Consequently, the duty foregone at the time of import has been confirmed by lower authorities. After filing the restoration application, applicant has obtained Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) vide letter F.No.32/21/040/0152/AM06 dated 25.10.2013.  Therefore, the submission of the counsel for appellant is to restore the appeal and decide the appeal itself after waiving requirement of pre-deposit of duty in the interest of justice.

3. Considered submissions on both sides. Since the dismissal is an ex-parte order and restoration application is filed within reasonable time, I restore the appeal to its original number. The order of dismissal of appeal dt. 29.6.2012 is recalled and appeal is restored to its original number. ROA is allowed.

4. Further now that EODC is produced, which prima facie discharges the export obligation, it is a sufficient condition for modifying the stay order and waive the requirement of pre-deposit. So after waiving the requirement of pre-deposit, the appeal is taken up for fresh consideration. In this case, interest of justice demands that the case should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the EODC dt. 25.10.2013 now produced and pass fresh orders in the matter. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //