JUDGMENT

S.Ravindra Bhat, J. (OPEN COURT) This writ petition challenges an order dated 15.2.2011 by the Department of Revenue (the first respondent), the appellate order dated 21.8.2009 by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) (the second respondent), and the order-in-original dated 29.4.2009 by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (the third respondent). All three authorities held that the petitioner ("FICCI") is liable for payment of Rs. 4,85,735/- as Customs Duty and Rs. 9,714/- as Education Cess, and interest thereon as applicable under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act).

2. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 25(1) of the Customs Act, the Central government by Notification No. 157/90-Customs dated 28th March, 1990, gave effect to the "ATA Carnet System" in terms of the ATA Convention. The ATA Carnet system is an international customs document that allows the holder to temporarily (up to one year) import goods without payment of normally applicable duties and taxes, including value-added taxes. The Carnet eliminates the need to purchase temporary import bonds. As long as the goods are re-exported within the allotted time frame, no duties or taxes are due. Failure to re-export all goods listed on the Carnet results in the need to pay the applicable duties. Failure to remit those duties results in a claim from the foreign customs service to the importer's home country. As per the relevant notification in this case, the movement of goods covered under the ATA Carnet System is controlled by endorsements made on the ATA Carnet by the guaranteeing association for ATA Carnet in India. The petitioner is the guaranteeing association for ATA Carnet in India. The notification exempts the goods covered under the ATA Carnet system which are imported into India, from the whole of the duty of customs leviable thereon. The notification issued by the Central Government requires that the said goods be re-exported back within a period of six months from the date of importation. In case of failure to do so, the customs duty leviable on the goods as on the date of clearance shall be paid by the guaranteeing association i.e. the petitioner.

3. The present case relates an ATA Carnet, i.e., No. US 89/05-64919 issued by the United States Council for International Business (USCIB), the national issuing and guaranteeing association for in the US, to M/s. B.G. Lawrence Inc. One Mr. D. Cowen, representative of the Carnet holder, entered into India with the goods on 13.08.2006 through the IGI Airport, New Delhi and returned on 15.09.2006. On 13.4.2007, the petitioner received a letter from Customs Department stating that they had no record of re-exportation of the goods imported under the said Carnet. After considering the petitioner's representation, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs by order dated 29.4.2009 levied the impugned customs duty along with education cess and interest on the petitioner. Being aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi which also rejected the same. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision application under section 129DD of the Act with the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which also was unsuccessful. Thus, this writ petition.

4. The petitioner claimed that after having received the show cause notice, it took up the matter with USCIB in USA requesting them to submit proof of re-exportation against the said Carnet. Since the matter was quite old, the USCIB could not trace out in its record the proof of re-exportation of the goods against the Carnet. However, to verify that the goods had, in fact, been re-exported back to the US from India, the Carnet holder, furnished, through USCIB a "Certificate of Disposition" in respect of the said Carnet. This certificate, counsel for the petitioner claimed, was valid proof of re-exportation under Article 8 of the ATA Convention. Counsel further stated that by the