2014 (1) TMI 581 - AT - Customs

Duty claim under Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme - Benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 - Limitation of reimport of goods - Export of consignment of handicraft items - Held that - DEPB benefit do not stand extended by the Revenue. It is only in the Shipping Bill that the appellant sought to export the goods under the said scheme. In fact, when we compare S. No. 1 of the notification with S. No. 2(a), we find distinction between the two can be easily noticed, Whereas S. No. 1 relates to goods exported under no claim for drawback or rebate, under S. No. 2(a) talks of goods exported under DEPB scheme. As such, by comparing the two Serial Numbers, it can be fairly concluded that while S. No. 1 is applicable to the goods exported under claim for draw back etc. S. No. 2(a) takes it into ambit the goods actually exported under DEPB scheme and not under claim of DEPB scheme. In the present case, the goods stand exported under claim of DEPB scheme and not actually under DEPB scheme. As such, we hold that the export is not covered under S. No. 2(a) of the notification in which case, the same would be covered under S. No. 3 which allow reimport of the goods at nil rate of duty. The proviso (a) to the notification laying down the condition that reimport of the goods exported under DEPB scheme should be within one year of export is thus not applicable to the present reimport of the exported goods Exports were made by the appellants under the claim of DEPB benefit but no such benefit stand extended to the appellant at the time of export. It is the appellants contention that inasmuch as the DEPB benefits were not extended to them, it cannot be held that the goods were exported under the DEPB scheme. Merely because the claim of DEPB was made which were not extended to them on the ground that certain conditions did not stand fulfilled by them, it cannot be held that exports were under the DEPB claim. In such a scenario, the limitation of one year for reimport of the goods would not be applicable - appellants are entitled to the benefit of notification in question - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Export of consignment under DEPB scheme without actual claim.
2. Rejection and reimport of consignment under Notification No. 94/96-Cus.
3. Interpretation of conditions for reimport benefit under the notification.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Export of consignment under DEPB scheme without actual claim
The appellants exported a consignment under the DEPB scheme, but no claim was made or extended for DEPB benefits. The consignment did not meet the necessary conditions for DEPB benefit, and no credit was issued to the appellants. The dispute centered around whether the goods were actually exported under the DEPB scheme, considering the lack of benefit extension.

Issue 2: Rejection and reimport under Notification No. 94/96-Cus.
The consignment was rejected by buyers and reimported, with a claim made under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. Lower authorities denied benefits for certain goods based on the condition that reimport under DEPB should occur within one year. The central question was whether the reimport, done after two years, qualified for the notification's benefits.

Issue 3: Interpretation of conditions for reimport benefit
The key contention was whether the goods were exported under the DEPB scheme or merely under a claim for DEPB benefits. The Tribunal analyzed the distinction between goods actually exported under DEPB and those exported under a claim for DEPB. It was concluded that since DEPB benefits were not extended, the goods were not exported under the DEPB scheme. Therefore, the condition of reimport within one year did not apply, and the appellants were entitled to the benefits under the notification.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal sided with the appellants, holding that the goods were not exported under the DEPB scheme due to the lack of benefit extension. As a result, the condition of reimport within one year did not apply, and the appellants were entitled to the benefits under the notification. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.