2023 (6) TMI 199 - AT - Customs

Re-import of goods - Claim of exemption from customs duty - Whether the original export was under the claim of refund of IGST - Benefit of Notification No.45/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 - contravention of the provisions of Sections 12, 17 and 46 of the Customs Act or not - It is the case of the appellant that at the time of export, they had wrongly mentioned that the export is being made for refund of IGST, wherein there was no claim for refund made - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the appellant neither claimed refund at any point of time, nor any such refund was granted to them. This fact has also been confirmed by the Revenue. There is no basis for issue of show cause notice dated 22.08.2019, wherein, it was alleged that the goods were exported under claim for refund of Integrated G.S. tax paid on export goods. Hence, under Sl.No.1 (c) of the said notification, the appellant was entitled to exemption for customs duty, save and except the amount of refund of IGST at the time of export. There is no mistake on the part of the appellant at the time of re-import of the goods, wherein, they claimed exemption under Sl.No.5 of Notification No.45/2017-Cus. - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case are whether the appellant claimed wrong benefit of Notification No.45/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 and whether the appellant was entitled to exemption for customs duty at the time of re-import of the goods.

Issue 1: Claiming wrong benefit of Notification No.45/2017-Cus:
The appellant, engaged in Import Export business, exported jewellery items for exhibition purposes and re-imported them without paying Customs duties due to Notification No.45/2017-Cus. The dispute arose as to whether the appellant claimed the wrong benefit of this notification by ticking the column for refund of IGST, even though there was no claim for refund made. The Revenue argued that the appellant should have claimed exemption under a different provision, while the appellant maintained that they exported the goods for exhibition-cum-sale purposes and did not claim any refund. The report from the Range Asstt. Commissioner confirmed that no refund was claimed or granted. The Tribunal found that the appellant was entitled to exemption under the relevant provision of the notification, and there was no basis for the show cause notice issued by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Entitlement to exemption for customs duty at the time of re-import:
The Tribunal examined the documentation and circumstances surrounding the re-import of the goods by the appellant. It was established that the appellant had claimed exemption under the appropriate provision of Notification No.45/2017-Cus at the time of re-import, and there was no mistake on their part. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted the appellant consequential benefits in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that they did not claim the wrong benefit of the notification and were entitled to exemption for customs duty at the time of re-import of the goods. The appellant's appeal was allowed, and they were granted the consequential benefit as per the law.