2018 (7) TMI 105 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 - denial on the ground that the goods were re-exported to supplier for want of proper labeling as required by PFA Act, 1954 - Ice Creamer Gelato Mix Concentrate - Held that - The Port Health Officer (PHO) have given no objection for re-import of the goods - In the situation when there is no dispute that the goods re-imported are not the same, which have gone back and returned after re-labelling, it would be unfair to deny the benefit of the Notification to the appellant. The item was back to the supplier merely for rectification of label or otherwise - denial of the benefit of notification to the importer is not just and proper - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 for re-import of goods.
2. Consideration of goods re-exported and re-imported.
3. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act for labeling issues.
4. Dispute regarding the sameness of the re-imported goods.
5. Port Health Officer's approval for re-import.
6. CFTRI's report on gelato mix content.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for re-import of 'Ice Creamer Gelato Mix Concentrate' claiming the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. The original authority and Commissioner (Appeals) denied the benefit, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: The appellant re-exported and re-imported 336 cartons of the same goods after relabeling, seeking the benefit of the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods cannot be considered the same, which was challenged in the appeal.

Issue 3: 336 cartons were confiscated under the Customs Act due to labeling issues. The goods were re-exported for relabeling, and the appellant sought the benefit upon re-importation.

Issue 4: The Tribunal noted that the goods re-imported after re-labeling were not the same as the original ones. The Tribunal found it unfair to deny the benefit of the notification to the appellant based on this ground.

Issue 5: The Port Health Officer gave approval for the re-import of the goods, indicating compliance with health regulations.

Issue 6: The CFTRI's report highlighted issues with the declaration of gelatin being of animal origin, leading to confusion. The Tribunal questioned the report's ambiguity and its impact on the labeling requirements.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief as per law. The decision was based on the findings that the denial of the notification's benefit to the importer was unjust considering the circumstances of re-exportation, re-importation, labeling issues, and regulatory approvals.