9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the subject goods can be allowed for re-importation under Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-95. 2. Whether the identification of the goods has been established. Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around the interpretation of the Gold Replenishment Scheme concerning duty-free re-importation of exported jewelry. The Commissioner's findings state that the scheme does not restrict re-importation for repairs. Rule 3(1) of the Foreign Trade (Exemption from Application of rules in Certain Cases) Order, 1993 allows for goods to be received back for repair and re-export, including those exported under the Gold Replenishment Scheme. The Notification 158/95-Cus. also does not exclude such goods. The Tribunal concurs with the importer's argument that once goods are exported under the scheme and obligations are fulfilled, they can be re-imported for repairs. The judgment emphasizes that no further probing is necessary if the goods can be re-imported for repairs, as in this case. Hence, the jewelry can be re-imported and re-exported under the relevant order issued under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation Act, 1992). 2. The second issue pertains to the identification of the re-imported jewelry. The physical verification conducted in the presence of relevant parties established the authenticity of the goods. Notably, some tags were found to be in the handwriting of a specific individual associated with the exporting entity. The Tribunal is convinced that the entire lot of jewelry is part of the previously exported goods, based on the physical verification and handwriting analysis. Consequently, the identification of the goods is deemed to be established beyond any doubt. This confirmation leads to the extension of benefits under Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-95 to the jewelry in question. 3. The Revenue's appeal challenges the Commissioner's order, arguing that certain types of exported gold jewelry lacked identification marks, making it impossible to establish eligibility for exemption under the relevant notification. However, the Tribunal notes that there was no dispute regarding the quality and quantity of the re-imported gold. The Commissioner's verification process, including the examination of tags with export signatures, was deemed satisfactory. The Tribunal rejects the Revenue's contentions, affirming that the re-importation and re-exportation complied with the stipulated timelines and procedures outlined in the notification. The Tribunal finds no grounds to overturn the Commissioner's order, concluding that the appeal lacks merit and upholds the original decision.
|
