2018 (6) TMI 938 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002 Cus dt. 01.03.2002 - Time Limitation for re-export of goods - Held that - The only reason for the demand canvassed by the revenue is that the goods were not re-exported within the stipulated time. In this context, when the exemption notification does not prescribe any such condition of re-export of goods, in that case the delay in re-export of goods by the stipulated date endorsed by the Director General of Hydrocarbons would not result into denial of benefit of exemption Notification - Only for the reason that there has been delay in re-export of goods the benefit of exemption notification cannot be denied to the Appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Applicability of exemption notification for imported goods under specific conditions, requirement of re-export of goods within stipulated time, validity of certificate from Director General of Hydrocarbons, compliance with conditions for availing exemption, imposition of duty for delay in re-export, interpretation of exemption notification conditions.

Analysis:

1. Applicability of Exemption Notification:
The Appellant imported goods under a Bill of Entry claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 - Cus, which required a certificate from the Director General of Hydrocarbons stating the goods were needed for petroleum operations. The Appellant submitted the certificate, and the goods were used as intended. The issue arose when the goods were not re-exported within the stipulated time, leading to a demand for duty. The Tribunal noted that the exemption notification did not include a condition for re-export, focusing on the requirement of certification for petroleum operations, which the Appellant had fulfilled. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a re-export condition in the notification meant that delay in re-export should not result in denial of the exemption.

2. Validity of Certificate and Compliance:
The Appellant argued that the certificate from the Director General of Hydrocarbons did not specify a time limit for re-export, relying on judgments supporting their position. They also highlighted that the Director General had waived the re-export stipulation. The revenue contended that since a bond for re-export was executed, compliance with the certificate's endorsement was necessary. However, the Tribunal held that the certification for petroleum operations sufficed, and the waiver of re-export condition by the Director General supported the Appellant's position.

3. Imposition of Duty for Delay in Re-export:
The revenue insisted on duty payment due to the delay in re-export beyond the stipulated time. However, the Tribunal, referencing relevant case laws, emphasized that the absence of a re-export condition in the exemption notification, coupled with the waiver by the Director General, meant that the Appellant should not be penalized for the delay in re-export. The Tribunal cited precedents to support their decision, highlighting that denial of exemption solely based on delayed re-export was unwarranted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the benefit of the exemption notification should not be denied to the Appellant due to the delay in re-export of goods. The decision was based on the interpretation of the exemption conditions, the validity of the certificate from the Director General of Hydrocarbons, and the waiver of the re-export stipulation, ensuring a fair application of customs regulations in this case.