2011 (4) TMI 894 - AT - Customs

Import of PVC tray for packing the handicrafts - disallowance of claim under Notification No.104/94-Cus dt.16.3.1994 - Held that - If the appellant is in a position to establish export of said goods within six months from the date of importation from other collateral evidence the benefit of notification should be made available to the assessee. However the claim of the appellant does not stand examined by the lower authorities remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for examining claim of exemption of Notification No.104/94-Cus dt.16.3.1994. The original claim of the appellant under Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 stands rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 for PVC tray import.
2. Claim of benefit under Notification No.104/94-Cus dated 16.3.1994.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 for PVC tray import:
The appellant, an exporter of handicrafts, imported PVC trays for packing handicrafts, seeking exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. The lower authorities denied the exemption, stating that PVC trays did not qualify as poly film used for shrink wrapping and cling wrapping of artwares. The appellant's advocate admitted during the hearing that PVC trays did not meet the criteria specified in the notification. Consequently, the claim under Notification No.21/2002-Cus was rejected.

Issue 2: Claim of benefit under Notification No.104/94-Cus dated 16.3.1994:
The appellant's advocate shifted focus and claimed the benefit under Notification No.104/94-Cus, which provided exemption to containers of durable nature, subject to the importer executing a bond to re-export the containers within six months of importation. The advocate argued that although this claim was not raised before the lower authorities, it was a legal issue that should be permitted at that stage. The Revenue's representative opposed this claim, highlighting the procedural requirements of the notification, including the execution of a bond and the need to establish the export of the same goods within the specified timeframe.

The tribunal acknowledged that the claim under Notification No.104/94-Cus was not presented before the lower authorities. However, considering it as an alternative claim of exemption available at the time of import, the tribunal emphasized the procedural requirement of executing a bond to ensure re-export within the stipulated period. If the appellant could substantiate the export of the goods within the specified timeframe through collateral evidence, the benefit of the notification should be granted. The tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for further examination, specifically regarding the export of the same goods and the identity verification of the imported and re-exported goods. It was clarified that the original claim under Notification No.21/2002-Cus was rejected.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the decision to remand the matter for a detailed examination of the appellant's claim under Notification No.104/94-Cus, while affirming the rejection of the claim under Notification No.21/2002-Cus.