2009 (1) TMI 577 - AT - Customs

Re-export of re-imported goods - Demand - time limitation - Held that - The fact that the re-imported goods have been re-exported is not being disputed. It is also not disputed that the Commissioner has power to extend the time limit for re-exportation beyond 6 months - as the goods have already been exported, the question of demanding duty does not arise in spite of the fact that they have re-exported after the stipulated period of 6 months - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Department's appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, Duty demand on re-imported goods, Extension of time for re-exportation, Final assessment of Bill of Entry, Show cause notice issuance, Interpretation of notification, Power of Commissioner to extend time limit, Re-importation and re-exportation circumstances.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal involved the Department challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order regarding the demand for duty on re-imported goods. The respondent had re-imported a consignment and claimed exemption under a specific notification. The goods were cleared provisionally, and a demand was raised upon final assessment, which was contested by the respondent citing re-exportation. The Commissioner had rejected a request for extending the time for re-exportation beyond the prescribed period. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued seeking to finalize the assessment and demand duty, which was confirmed by the original authority. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the duty demand stating that no duty was payable on the re-imported goods, even though re-exportation occurred beyond the stipulated period of 6 months but within 1 year from clearance. The Tribunal noted the peculiar circumstances of the case where goods were exported, re-imported, and re-exported without clear reasons for such actions. It was acknowledged that the Commissioner had the power to extend the time limit for re-exportation. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing that as the goods had already been exported, no duty demand was justified despite re-exportation after the stipulated period. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order and rejected the appeal, endorsing the decision and reasoning provided by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision affirmed the Commissioner (Appeals) ruling that no duty was payable on the re-imported goods despite re-exportation occurring beyond the prescribed period. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding re-importation and re-exportation while interpreting relevant notifications and granting extensions. The Tribunal's thorough analysis and endorsement of the Commissioner's decision showcased a meticulous approach to resolving the dispute and upholding the principles of duty imposition in such cases.