2004 (11) TMI 177 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit under notification 94/96 for reimported goods after a period of 2 years.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Requirement of No Objection Certificate from Public Health Authorities (PHO).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of benefit under notification 94/96 for reimported goods after a period of 2 years
The appellants exported Psyllium husk under the DEPB scheme, but part of the goods were rejected by foreign buyers and reimported. The appellant claimed the benefit of notification 94/96 dated 16-12-1996 in the Bill of Entry for reimportation. However, the exemption was denied as the goods were reimported after 2 years from the date of exportation, exceeding the specified period in the notification. The Tribunal upheld the denial, stating that the condition of the notification regarding the time period cannot be relaxed. The appellant's representative agreed that the benefit of the notification was rightly denied due to the delayed reimportation.

Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine and penalty
Although the benefit of the notification was rightly denied, the appellant contested the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal acknowledged that claiming the benefit of a notification does not imply any malafide intent on the part of the importer. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the imposition of the redemption fine and penalty, as it was established that there was no basis for penal action against the appellant in this context.

Issue 3: Requirement of No Objection Certificate from Public Health Authorities (PHO)
The Commissioner's order stipulated that the goods could be released to the appellant only upon obtaining a No Objection Certificate from Public Health Authorities (PHO). However, the appellant's advocate argued that an No Objection Certificate should be obtained from the ADC instead of the PHO. The Tribunal modified the condition, accepting the appellant's submission, and directed that the requirement for the No Objection Certificate should be fulfilled as per the revised instruction.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the benefit under notification 94/96 for goods reimported after 2 years, overturned the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, and modified the requirement for obtaining a No Objection Certificate from Public Health Authorities to be from the ADC.