2005 (10) TMI 381 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against confirmation of demand of Customs Duty on re-imported goods.
2. Interpretation of Notification 158/95-Cus regarding re-export period extension.
3. Applicability of Tribunal decision in a similar case.
4. Comparison with the Supreme Court decision on limitation period extension.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the confirmation of a demand of Rs. 2,06,551 for re-imported goods. The appellant exported Leather jackets and re-imported a part consignment under Notification 158/95-Cus. The notification required re-export within a specified period, extendable by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant sought an extension, granted for one year, but re-exported the goods four months beyond the allowed period. A Show Cause Notice was issued for Customs Duty payment due to the delay. The appellant argued that the goods were eventually re-exported, supported by the Revenue's recommendation for extending the bank guarantee. The appellant cited a Tribunal decision in a similar case to argue that procedural conditions in the notification are condonable when the export is not disputed by the revenue.

The revenue contended that the goods were re-exported after one year and four months, exceeding the period allowed by the notification. They referenced a Supreme Court decision to support the argument that the period specified in the notification cannot be extended, not even by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal noted that the undisputed fact was the delay in re-exporting the goods beyond the prescribed period in the notification. Citing the Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that even under Article 226, the period of limitation in the notification cannot be extended. Consequently, the Tribunal found no fault in the order and dismissed the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the demand for Customs Duty on the re-imported goods due to the delay in re-export beyond the period allowed by Notification 158/95-Cus. The decision was based on the interpretation of the notification's provisions and the application of relevant legal precedents, including the Supreme Court ruling on limitation period extension. The appellant's argument regarding the procedural nature of the conditions in the notification was not accepted, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.