2024 (2) TMI 978 - AT - Customs

Re-exported goods after three years - Violation of Notification No. 27/2002-Cus - Show Cause Notice issued - HELD THAT - Since Notification No. 27/2002-Cus is a conditional Notification, the conditions specified therein have to be fully complied with by the importer in order to enjoy the exempted benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned OIA has given the findings that ; '' The appellant did not submit any application to the competent authority for the extension of the period to one year, and did re-export after three years of the limit of extended period gets over, thus prima facie the Notification No. 27/2002-Cus has been violated, and on this basis only the appeal can be considered to be disposed off. The financial trouble of the appellant can not be the basis of his defence.'' Thus, he has dismissed the Appeal. Since the facts are not in dispute, we do not see any reason to interfere with the detailed and considered order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we dismiss the present Appeal.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the re-export of goods under Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01/04/2002, compliance with conditions of the notification, delay in re-export, and the financial problems faced by the appellant.

Re-export of goods under Notification No. 27/2002-Cus:
The Appellant had exported goods which were later rejected by the overseas importer and re-imported in India. The Appellant opted to avail the benefit of Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01/04/2002, which required the re-export of goods within six months or one year with an extension. However, the Appellant re-exported the goods after three years, leading to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice and confirmation of demands by the lower authorities.

Compliance with conditions of the notification:
The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Appellant failed to comply with the conditions specified in Notification No. 27/2002-Cus. Despite financial problems cited by the Appellant as a reason for the delay in re-export, the Commissioner emphasized that the conditions of the notification must be adhered to strictly. Referring to legal precedents, the Commissioner highlighted that notifications have statutory powers and must be followed verbatim.

Delay in re-export and financial problems faced by the appellant:
The Appellant re-exported the goods after a significant delay of three years, well beyond the stipulated time frame under the notification. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal, noting that the financial troubles of the Appellant could not serve as a defense for non-compliance with the notification's conditions. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and the Commissioner's order, upheld the dismissal of the appeal, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the detailed decision made by the Commissioner (Appeals).