2011 (1) TMI 355 - AT - Customs

Re-import of exported goods - Exemption - Held that - the exports initially made under DEEC have to be held as non DEEC exports, after de-logging, in which case the period of 3 years would be available for re-import of exported goods - The re-importation within 3 years was within the parameters of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., thus making the appellants entitled to the benefit of the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption notification for re-importation of goods under specific schemes.
2. Effect of de-logging of exported goods from the DEEC book on eligibility for exemption.
3. Determination of the scheme under which goods were exported and its impact on re-importation eligibility.
4. Consideration of time limit for re-importation and extension granted by the Commissioner of Customs.
5. Applicability of Tribunal decisions on similar issues to the present case.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Exemption Notification:
The case involved the interpretation of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. for the re-importation of goods under specific schemes. The appellant claimed that the re-importation should be covered under a specific provision of the notification, while the department contested this interpretation.

Issue 2: Effect of De-Logging on Exemption Eligibility:
The authorities examined the effect of de-logging the exported goods from the DEEC book on the eligibility for exemption under the notification. The Deputy Commissioner observed that de-logging did not change the status of the export under the DEEC scheme, leading to the denial of the exemption benefit.

Issue 3: Determination of Export Scheme and Re-Importation Eligibility:
The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods continued to be exported under the DEEC scheme despite de-logging, as there was no conversion of the scheme. This determination impacted the eligibility for re-importation under the notification.

Issue 4: Time Limit for Re-Importation and Extension:
The time limit for re-importation of goods under the DEEC scheme was a crucial factor. The Commissioner of Customs had extended the time for re-importation, which was a point of contention in assessing the eligibility for exemption under the notification.

Issue 5: Applicability of Tribunal Decisions:
The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, notably the case of Commissioner of Customs, Madurai v. Mittulal Lalah & Sons, to support the interpretation of de-logging leading to non-DEEC exports. The relevance of these decisions in the present case was crucial in determining the outcome.

In the judgment, the Tribunal analyzed the facts and legal provisions to determine the eligibility of the appellant for the exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The authorities had differing views on the impact of de-logging on the export scheme and the subsequent re-importation eligibility. The Tribunal considered precedents and observed that de-logging the DEEC book changed the nature of the exports, making them non-DEEC exports. This interpretation allowed for the benefit of the notification to be granted to the appellant, as the re-importation fell within the extended time limit. The Tribunal set aside the lower orders and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants based on the law declared in previous Tribunal decisions.