9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Stay application filed by Revenue against order-in-appeal dated 24-7-2007 regarding duty demand and valuation of re-imported goods under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. Analysis: The Revenue filed a stay application against an order-in-appeal related to duty demand on re-imported goods. The dispute arose from the valuation of goods re-imported under Notification No. 158/95-Cus, where the respondents failed to re-export within the stipulated period, leading to a demand for duty based on the FOB value at the time of export. The Commissioner (Appeals) favored the respondent, prompting the Revenue to appeal. The Finance Incharge of the respondent company explained that the delay in re-export was due to circumstances beyond their control, involving rubber bladders exported but not re-exported in time. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the Revenue demanded duty due to a one-month delay in re-exporting goods that were eventually exported. The Finance Incharge argued that the re-imported goods were defective, affecting their value compared to the FOB value of the exported goods. The Tribunal agreed that the delay was minimal, and the goods were ultimately exported, thus questioning the liability for duty. They concluded that since the core issue of duty liability was uncertain, the valuation issue was of secondary importance. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay application, emphasizing that the goods were not consumed domestically and were eventually exported. In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on the understanding that the delay in re-exporting goods, albeit one month, did not warrant duty imposition, especially considering the defective nature of the re-imported goods and the ultimate exportation. The primary focus was on the uncertainty regarding duty liability, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's stay application against the order-in-appeal.
|
