2001 (8) TMI 773 - AT - Customs

Imports - Re-importation of goods exported under DEEC scheme, and re-exportation, after re-processing

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order permitting importers to clear goods for reprocessing without duty payment
- Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 regarding re-imported goods and duty liability
- Validity of Commissioner's order allowing re-export under DEEC scheme

Analysis:
1. Appeal against Order Permitting Importers to Clear Goods for Reprocessing Without Duty Payment:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The Commissioner had allowed importers to restore their original warehousing Bill of Entry and clear the goods for reprocessing without payment of duty. The condition imposed was that the importers had to execute a bond with a bank guarantee, undertaking to re-export the goods within six months, failing which they would be liable to pay the duty with interest. The Revenue contended that the order lacked legal backing and was not in accordance with the law.

2. Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962 Regarding Re-imported Goods and Duty Liability:
The dispute centered around the re-importation of goods by M/s. Malladi Drugs & Pharmaceuticals for reprocessing and export. The importers sought duty-free clearance under a Customs Notification, which was rejected by the department. The Customs Act, 1962 stipulates that re-imported goods are liable to duty and subject to conditions applicable to goods of similar kind and value upon importation. The original authority had assessed duty on the goods, leading to an appeal by the importers. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, allowing duty-free clearance for reprocessing and re-export under certain conditions.

3. Validity of Commissioner's Order Allowing Re-export Under DEEC Scheme:
The Revenue raised objections to the Commissioner's order on various grounds. They argued that duty was chargeable on the re-imported goods as there was no Notification exempting duty-free clearance on the crucial date of re-importation. Additionally, they contended that the Commissioner's decision to permit re-export was not in accordance with the law. The Revenue also highlighted the issuance of a subsequent Notification permitting duty-free clearance for re-imported goods, which was not applicable to the goods imported earlier. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's arguments, finding the Commissioner's order allowing duty-free clearance and re-export to be improper and not in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order to the extent that it allowed the importers to clear the goods for processing under bond without payment of duty and to re-export under the DEEC scheme. The decision was based on the interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962 and the lack of legal basis for duty-free clearance in the specific circumstances of the case.