9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No. 20/99-Cus for exemption on imported parts of Implantable Cardiac Pacemaker - Duty liability when defective imported goods are re-exported - Discrepancy between imported parts and exported products Interpretation of Notification No. 20/99-Cus for exemption on imported parts of Implantable Cardiac Pacemaker: The appellant imported parts of Implantable Cardiac Pacemaker under Notification No. 20/99-Cus, claiming exemption. However, a consignment of 33 sets of parts was found defective and re-exported for free replacement. The appellant argued that no duty liability should apply since the defective goods were not used for their intended purpose. The advocate cited the Cipla Ltd. v. UOI case where re-exports were allowed after payment of 2% duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) denied the exemption, which was upheld. The judge agreed with this denial but noted the lack of consideration on re-exportation. Duty liability when defective imported goods are re-exported: The judge observed that imposing duty liability on re-exported defective goods would create an unfair scenario. Comparing scenarios, he highlighted the discrepancy where an importer paying duty could claim drawback upon re-export, while a duty-free importer would have to pay duty upon re-export. This inconsistency was deemed legally unintended. The judge emphasized that the issue of re-exportation was not adequately addressed by the Original Authority and Commissioner (Appeals). Discrepancy between imported parts and exported products: The Respondent pointed out a discrepancy where exemption was claimed for parts of pace makers during import, but the export documents referred to only pace makers. This discrepancy raised questions about the accuracy of the import-export process and the proper documentation of goods. The judge's decision to remand the matter to the Original Authority aimed to address this discrepancy and ensure the proper consideration of re-exported goods for availing benefits.
|
