2012 (5) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Exemption on Re import - notification no. 94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996 - held that - at the time of importation as presented were fully built buses containing fitments such as Air Conditioner, T.V., video, Coffee maker, music system and refrigerator. The goods which were exported were (as declared by the appellant) chassis fitted with engine. Notification 94/96 stipulates that for availing the benefit thereunder , the goods should be the same which were exported. Benefit of said notification would not be available in a case where any goods exported are re-imported after fitment to and assemblage with other goods, abroad cannot be considered to be satisfying the condition under notification 94/96. - Decided against the assessee.

Issues:
1. Denial of duty exemption under notification no. 94/96-Cus for re-imported goods.
2. Interpretation of the phrase "goods exported when re-imported into India provided that the goods are the same which were exported."
3. Classification of goods under Indian Customs Tariff.
4. Comparison of goods exported (chassis with engine) and goods imported (fully built buses with fittings).
5. Application of case laws in determining the classification of goods.
6. Analysis of previous judgments related to the issue.
7. Assessment of benefit under Notification 94/96-Cus based on the facts of the case.
8. Comparison with a similar case in Ford India for denying the benefit of the notification.

Analysis:

1. The case involves the denial of duty exemption under notification no. 94/96-Cus for re-imported goods. The appellant claimed the benefit based on the goods being the same as those exported, but the authorities rejected the claim due to differences in the imported goods, which were fully built buses with various fittings.

2. The interpretation of the phrase "goods exported when re-imported into India provided that the goods are the same which were exported" was crucial. The appellant argued that the goods should be considered the same, citing legal precedents and judgments to support their claim. However, the authorities emphasized the need for the goods to match exactly as exported to qualify for the exemption.

3. The classification of goods under the Indian Customs Tariff was significant in this case. Chassis fitted with engines fell under a different category (heading no. 8706) compared to fully built buses (heading no. 8702). The assessment of customs duty required the goods to be evaluated based on how they were presented before the customs.

4. A detailed comparison of the goods exported (chassis with engine) and the goods imported (fully built buses with fittings) revealed substantial differences. The appellant's attempt to avail the benefit under the notification was challenged due to the distinct nature of the re-imported goods.

5. The application of case laws played a crucial role in determining the classification of goods. Legal precedents related to the classification of bus bodies, works contracts, and sales tax were cited by both parties to support their arguments regarding the nature of the goods involved.

6. Previous judgments, such as the Ford India case, were analyzed to draw parallels and establish a basis for denying the benefit of notification 94/96-Cus in the present case. The tribunal relied on past decisions to support its conclusion that the goods did not meet the criteria for the duty exemption.

7. Ultimately, the tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing that the goods exported and re-imported were not the same, as required by the notification. The differences between the chassis with engine exported and the fully built buses imported led to the denial of the benefit under notification no. 94/96-Cus.

8. The comparison with the Ford India case provided a clear precedent for denying the benefit of the notification in situations where goods exported are re-imported after being fitted or assembled with other components. The tribunal's decision aligned with past judgments and established that the appellant was not entitled to the duty exemption based on the specific circumstances of the case.

← Previous Next →