2007 (12) TMI 57 - AT - Customs

Exported goods received back - doubt was raised regarding identity of the imported pieces with the original pieces which were earlier exported re-export after repair - but in re-exported, DEPB benefit was claimed so it can be presumed, that at least description of the goods in question have been properly examined and on that basis it is possible to conclude that condition u/not..158/95 have been satisfied- initially no drawback, DEPB was taken so benefit of not. 94/96 is available

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim of benefit under Notification No. 158/95-Cus for re-importation of defective goods.
2. Failure to intimate the Department about re-exportation against earlier importation.
3. Interpretation of Notification No. 94/96-Cus for duty exemption.
4. Satisfaction of Departmental Authorities regarding identity of goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the Appellants initially exporting 5000 defective goods, part of which was returned due to defective zinc coating. Upon re-importation, they claimed benefit under Notification No. 158/95-Cus, facing doubts about establishing the identity of the imported pieces with the original ones. The Department allowed duty-free importation based on the peculiar nature of the goods, despite lacking marks or numbers. Subsequently, 2250 pieces were re-exported after repair/re-coating, with DEPB benefits claimed for this consignment. The Customs verified the goods under the DEPB scheme, confirming the description matched the imported items. The Appellants failed to inform the Department about re-exportation against the earlier import, but the Tribunal found leniency was warranted due to the circumstances.

2. The Senior Advocate argued that since no drawback or DEPB benefits were claimed for the initial export, duty should be 'nil' under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the Advocate contended that the Appellants were entitled to duty exemption independently. The Department, however, contended that the AC's satisfaction, a requirement under Notification 158/95-Cus, was not met, and small cases like this should not be brought to the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after considering both arguments and case records, held that the Appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus, even if the identity of the goods was not explicitly established due to the Appellants' failure to inform the Department about re-exportation.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Departmental Authorities were satisfied during importation that the goods were identical, despite the lack of marks or numbers. The re-exportation under the DEPB scheme further supported the presumption that the goods' description was properly examined. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the Appellants met the conditions under Notification No. 158/95. Additionally, the Appellants were found to be entitled to duty exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus, as they had not availed of any duty drawback or DEPB benefits, as per previous Tribunal decisions cited by the Senior Advocate.

4. In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal viewed the case of the Appellants leniently and set aside the duty demand confirmed under the impugned order. The appeal was allowed based on the findings that the Appellants satisfied the conditions for duty exemption under both Notification No. 158/95-Cus and Notification No. 94/96-Cus, despite the oversight in not intimating the Department about the re-exportation against the earlier importation.