2016 (6) TMI 1198 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 94/96-Cus - denial on the ground that the goods under import were engine assemblies and not FIPs which were earlier exported - Held that - the same issue came for decision before the Tribunal in the case of Ford India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2008 (4) TMI 108 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that exemption not admissible to the fuel injection pumps and injectors imported as integral part of Diesel engine assemblies. The matter came to be clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 1/2005, dated 11-1-2005 to the effect that FIPs and injectors exported and re-imported after fitment into engines were not covered by N/N. 94/96-Cus - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Claim for concession under Notification No. 94/96-Cus for import of Fuel Injection Pumps (FIPs) - Interpretation of whether the goods re-imported are the same as those exported.

Analysis:
The case involved the appellant filing Bills of Entry for importing Fuel Injection Pumps (FIPs) and claiming exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus for re-imported goods. The original authority denied the concession, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appellant contended that the FIPs exported were re-imported, albeit fitted into engines, and remained the same. The appellant relied on the Explanation to the notification, arguing that since the FIPs did not undergo re-manufacturing processes, they should be eligible for the exemption. However, the respondent argued that the exported FIPs and the imported engine assemblies were different products, losing their identity when fitted into engines. The respondent relied on classification principles to oppose the concession claim.

The Tribunal analyzed the case, considering the decision in Ford India Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, where it was held that the imported engine assemblies were not the same as the exported FIPs due to losing their identity when fitted into engines. The Tribunal emphasized that the processes mentioned in the Explanation to the notification were related to exported items, not extraneous goods like engines. The Tribunal concluded that the imports did not qualify as "reimports" of the FIPs exported. The Tribunal also noted a Board Circular clarifying that FIPs and injectors re-imported after fitting into engines were not covered by Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal based on the precedent and the clarification, finding no merit in the appellant's claim for concession under the notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of concession to the appellant for importing Fuel Injection Pumps under Notification No. 94/96-Cus, based on the interpretation that the goods re-imported were not the same as those exported, as they lost their identity when fitted into engines. The decision was in line with the precedent set in a similar case and the clarification provided by the Board, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.