2010 (12) TMI 140 - AT - Customs

Advance licences - M/s. Molex (India) Ltd., Bangalore (the respondent) had imported DC Plugs under two bills of entry without payment of duty by utilizing advance licence No.710005192 dt.17/8/2000and No.710006344 dt.22/11/2001 Some goods were re-exported to the supplier through Customs House, Chennai without obtaining any permission from the Bangalore Customs or without intimating - The concerned licence has already redeemed after the respondents fulfillment of the export obligation which was required to be fulfilled against the advance licences - the question of allowing of re-credit does not arise since the licence has been redeemed

Summary

Issues:
1. Re-export of defective goods imported under advance licences without permission.
2. Allowance of re-credit for re-exported goods.
3. Interpretation of relevant provisions and circulars regarding re-export and re-credit.

Analysis:
1. The respondent imported DC Plugs under advance licences without duty payment but later re-exported a significant portion without obtaining permission from customs. The issue arose when the respondent sought re-credit for the re-exported goods, which was initially rejected by the Original Authority, leading to an appeal by the respondent against this decision.

2. The Commissioner(Appeals) allowed the re-credit, emphasizing that specific provisions were not necessary as the benefit stemmed from the notification allowing re-export of defective goods. However, the Revenue contended that without explicit instructions or provisions similar to those for goods imported under the DEPB scheme, the re-credit should not be granted. The Tribunal analyzed the situation and noted that the concerned advance licence had already been redeemed upon fulfilling the export obligation, rendering the re-credit issue moot and academic.

3. The Tribunal concluded that since the licence had been redeemed and the re-credit had not been allowed by the Department pending the appeal, the question of re-credit was no longer relevant. As a result, the appeal filed by the Revenue was deemed infructuous, leading to its dismissal. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, highlighting the importance of compliance with licensing obligations and the implications of redemption on subsequent claims for re-credit.