9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of time period for re-export under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. 2. Calculation of the time period for re-export from the date of actual clearance of goods. Issue 1 - Interpretation of time period for re-export under Notification No. 158/95-Cus: The appellant exported PC base assemblies, some of which were found defective and re-exported into India for repair. The bill of entry for re-import was filed, and the appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 158/95 dated 14-11-95. The Revenue contended that since the goods were re-exported after six months from the import date, they encashed the bank guarantee. The appellant's refund claim was rejected based on this interpretation. Issue 2 - Calculation of the time period for re-export from the date of actual clearance of goods: The appellant argued that the goods were actually cleared from the customs area on 24-4-02 and re-exported on 07-10-02, falling within six months from the date of actual clearance. They relied on Board Circular No. 14/97-Cus. dated June 3, 1997, which clarified that the time period for re-export is calculated from the date of actual clearance, not the filing of the bill of entry. The Revenue, however, insisted that the date of import is the filing of the bill of entry, and since the goods were exported beyond six months from the bill of entry, the benefit was rightly denied. Analysis: The Tribunal referred to the Board circular dated 3-6-97, which clarified that the time period for re-export under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. is to be calculated from the date of actual clearance of goods, not the filing of the bill of entry. Since the goods in question were re-exported within six months from the date of actual clearance, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The clarification provided by the Board was crucial in determining the correct interpretation of the time period for re-export in this case.
|
