2016 (10) TMI 442 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - two consignments of test and measuring equipment - ATA Carnet facility provided under the Notification No 157/1990-Cus - benefit of Notification available if goods exported within a period of six months from the date of importation - clause-4 in its further Proviso says that the said period of six months can be extended by a further period not exceeding six months - whether the refund will be granted on first consignment which was exported within a period of one year from the date of import? - Held that - the decision in the case of Federation of I.C.C. & Industry Vs UOI 2013 (6) TMI 371 - DELHI HIGH COURT relied upon. The period of export is deemed to be extended by another six months and customs duty consequently will not be liable on the said item - duty of customs paid on the said item deserves to be refunded to the appellant within a period of four months. Whether the refund granted to the 2nd consignment of test and measuring equipment exported after the period of one year? - Held that - the period of export could be extended only by a further period not exceeding six months as per the further proviso to clause-5 of the Notification No. 157/90 Cus. - no scope of providing any relief of refund of duty of customs to the appellant. For first consignment, refund allowed. For second consignment, refund claim rejected - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims of customs duty for two consignments under ATA Carnet facility.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 157/1990-Cus regarding the time limit for re-export.
3. Applicability of case laws in support of refund claims.
4. Dispute over the period of re-export for the second consignment.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The appellant, a company, appealed against the rejection of refund claims for customs duty paid on two consignments - ?43,632/- and ?89,794/-, imported under ATA Carnet facility for exhibition purposes.

Issue 2: The appellant imported test and measuring equipment under ATA Carnet facility, seeking extension for re-export due to an employee leaving the job. The Notification No. 157/1990-Cus required export within six months, extendable by another six months. The first consignment was re-exported within a year, justifying duty refund based on case laws cited.

Issue 3: The appellant relied on case laws like Federation of I.C.C. & Industry Vs UOI and CC (Port) Kolkata Vs Banmore Electricals Pvt. Ltd to support their refund claims, arguing that re-export within a year should allow duty refund, as per the Notification.

Issue 4: The second consignment was re-exported after a year, beyond the permissible time frame. The Tribunal held that duty was rightly charged on this consignment as per the Notification's conditions, denying any refund. The judgment allowed duty refund for the first consignment within four months but rejected the appeal for the second consignment.

The Tribunal's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the Notification's provisions, case laws, and the specific circumstances of each consignment's re-export timeline. The judgment clarified the conditions for duty refund under ATA Carnet facility and upheld the legal principles governing such matters.