9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Failure to re-export goods within the specified period under Notification No. 158/95. 2. Discrepancy in the identity of re-imported and re-exported goods. Analysis: Issue 1: Failure to re-export goods within the specified period under Notification No. 158/95 The case involved an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the re-export of defective goods by a 100% EOU. The appellants re-imported the goods for repair under Notification No. 53/97 but failed to re-export them within the stipulated period of six months as per Notification No. 158/95. The Customs authorities demanded Rs. 2,83,186/-, which was confirmed by the original authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading the appellants to approach the Tribunal for relief. Issue 2: Discrepancy in the identity of re-imported and re-exported goods The Customs Act and relevant notifications required the re-export of goods within a specified period after re-importing for re-working or replacement. The appellants argued that the goods were re-imported under Notification No. 53/97, which did not specify a re-export period. However, the Customs authorities contended that Notification No. 158/95 applied to the re-export, as the appellants had executed a bond under this notification. The lower authorities found a discrepancy in the identity of the re-imported cotton jackets and the re-exported nylon jackets, which was not raised by the appellants earlier. The failure to re-export within the prescribed period and establish the identity of the goods led to the confirmation of the duty demand. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand under Notification No. 158/95, stating that the appellants failed to re-export the goods within the specified period and did not establish the identity of the re-imported and re-exported goods. The appeal was deemed to have no merit and was rejected, affirming the decision of the lower authorities.
|
