2017 (9) TMI 1143 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 158/95 - violation of condition of notification - Held that - nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant is required to seek extension of time within six months from the date of re-importation. In fact, the fact is not in dispute that re-imported goods are required to be re-exported within three years of re-import as per condition (i) of the said notification. When the main condition of notification has not been violated by the appellant, therefore the benefit of notification cannot be denied merely on the ground that appellant did not seek extension of time within 6 months of re-import - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appropriation of bank guarantee for re-importation of goods not re-exported within 6 months under notification No. 158/95.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the order where the bank guarantee was forfeited for not re-exporting the goods within six months as required by notification No. 158/95. The appellant re-imported a consignment found defective, but failed to re-export it within the stipulated time frame. The appellant argued that they re-exported the goods within 9 months and had substantially complied with the notification's conditions. The AR supported the impugned order. The tribunal examined whether the appellant had fulfilled the conditions of notification No. 158/95, which required re-export within six months of re-importation or with an extension. The tribunal noted that the notification did not specify seeking an extension within six months. As the main condition of re-export within three years of re-importation was met, the tribunal held that the appellant had complied with the notification. The tribunal distinguished a previous case where no extension was sought, unlike the present case where an extension request was made after six months. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and relieving the appellant from forfeiting the bank guarantee.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of notification No. 158/95 regarding the re-exportation of goods within a specified time frame after re-importation. It emphasizes substantial compliance with the notification's main conditions and distinguishes cases based on the presence or absence of extension requests within the stipulated time frames. The decision highlights the importance of fulfilling the core requirements of notifications and allows for a pragmatic approach in granting extensions within a reasonable period.