2014 (12) TMI 648 - AT - Customs

Extension of time for re-export of goods - Duty free import of the goods for repair and re-export - Consignment of alloy steel spanners had been exported out of India - Denial of exemption - Notification No.158/95-CUS dated 14/11/95 - Held that - the goods which should have been cleared for repair and re-export by the end of January 2012 were cleared in first week of April, 2012. Though the appellant on 04/10/12 had applied for extension of the period by another six months, it is seen that absolutely no decision was taken by the Customs. Since, the bill of entry has been filed on 14/12/11 and the goods had been presented to the customs for re-export on 27/11/12, in our view the goods should be treated as having been exported within a period of one year and the benefit of notification should be extended as the notification stipulates the re-export within a period of six months period which can be further extended by the Commissioner by another six months and just because the Commissioner in this case has chosen just to sit over the appellant s request for extension and not take any decision, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that they failed to re-export within the extended period in terms of the notification. The another plea of the Department is that it is the date of IGM -dated 24/11/11 which has to be treated as the date of import. In our view this plea is not acceptable, as the IGMs can be filed under prior entry system even before the arrival of the vessel and, therefore, the date of IGM cannot be treated as the date of import. It is the date on which the entry inward is granted which has to be treated as date of import, which in this case is not known. - impugned order denying the exemption is not sustainable. The same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty-free import for repair and re-export under Notification No.158/95-CUS.
2. Delay in re-export of goods leading to denial of exemption.
3. Commissioner's role in granting extension for re-export period.
4. Interpretation of the date of import for duty calculation.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the export and subsequent re-import of alloy steel spanners for repair/re-conditioning under Notification No.158/95-CUS. The appellant met the conditions of the notification, including furnishing a bond for re-export and ensuring the identity of the goods. However, customs delayed the clearance of the goods beyond the stipulated time frame, causing issues with the re-export timeline.

2. Despite the appellant's request for an extension of the re-export period, the customs did not make a decision promptly. The goods were presented for re-export within a year of import, but the Commissioner had not granted an official extension, leading to the denial of the duty exemption under the notification. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the customs' inaction on their extension request.

3. The appellant contended that since the goods were presented for re-export within a year of import, they should be eligible for the exemption even without the Commissioner's formal extension. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Commissioner's failure to decide on the extension request promptly should not penalize the appellant, especially when the goods were presented for re-export within a reasonable time frame.

4. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument that the date of IGM should be considered the date of import, emphasizing that the date of entry inward should determine the import date. As this date was not clear in the case, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the order denying the exemption and allowing the appeal based on the timely re-export of the goods.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal and procedural aspects of the case, addressing each issue comprehensively and providing a thorough understanding of the judgment.