9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 745 - AT - CustomsExported goods received back and reexported - allegation of Non following the procedure in identifying goods at the time of export nor produced relevant certificate of reprocessing from the authorities - no Compliance with export obligations and re-importation of goods for reprocessing - benefit of Notification No.94/96 - appellant had initially exported a total of 20592 kgs. of Indian tea to Netherlands and on rejection of the same, the cargo was recalled to India on which no DEPB claim was advanced even though mentioned in the shipping bill HELD THAT - As goods were imported against Bill of Entry dated 17.03.2005 for re-export claiming benefit of Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.1995. It is also not in dispute that after processing the goods, the same were re-exported within the prescribed period of limitation under Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.1995 against shipping bills dated 20.04.2005 and 23.04.2005. Also, in each of the shipping bills, against which re-export was done, the appellant had specifically mentioned as Returned cargo Used-10452 kgs (cleared vide B/E No.156633 dt. 17.03.2005) . The goods have been exported after due verification by the Customs authorities. In these factual scenarios, allegation that the appellant had not followed the procedure in identifying goods at the time of export nor produced relevant certificate of reprocessing from the authorities, in our view, would not be sustainable. Besides, we find that the appellant are also entitled to the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996. It is held in the case of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI 2007 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT that even if an applicant does not claim benefit under a particular notification at initial stage, he is not debarred, prohibited or estopped from claiming such benefit at a later stage. The goods have been duly exported after proper declaration in the shipping bills, we do not find justification in demanding duty from the appellant on the goods re-exported. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.1995 and Notification No.94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996. 2. Compliance with export obligations and re-importation of goods for reprocessing. 3. Verification and identification of goods for re-export. 4. Benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus in case Notification No.158/95 is not applicable. 5. Precedents supporting the entitlement to duty exemption under relevant notifications. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Notifications The case involved the interpretation of Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.1995 and Notification No.94/96-Cus dated 16.12.1996. The appellant exported tea under the Post-DEPB Scheme, faced rejection by the foreign buyer, and re-imported the goods for reprocessing and subsequent re-export. The appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No.158/95 for duty-free clearance. The Tribunal found that the appellant fulfilled the conditions of the notifications, allowing for duty exemption under Notification No.94/96-Cus if Notification No.158/95 was not applicable. Issue 2: Compliance with Export Obligations The appellant successfully demonstrated compliance with export obligations by recalling the rejected goods, re-importing them for reprocessing, and subsequently re-exporting the processed goods. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had fulfilled the export obligation after re-processing the goods and found no violation of Notification No.158/95 based on the evidence presented. Issue 3: Verification and Identification of Goods The Customs authorities verified and identified the goods for re-export, ensuring that the goods exported after reprocessing were part of the returned cargo. The appellant maintained proper documentation, including mentioning the returned cargo in the shipping bills, invoice, and packing list. The Tribunal determined that the appellant had followed the necessary procedures for identifying and exporting the goods, as required by the notifications. Issue 4: Benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus In cases where Notification No.158/95 was deemed inapplicable, the Tribunal referred to precedents and allowed the benefit of Notification No.94/96-Cus. The Tribunal cited a previous case where duty exemption was granted under Notification No.94/96-Cus due to the peculiar circumstances of the import-export transactions, emphasizing the importance of proper declaration and examination of goods. Issue 5: Precedents and Duty Exemption The Tribunal cited relevant precedents, including the case of Share Medical Care Vs. UOI, to support the appellant's entitlement to claim benefits under the notifications at a later stage. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to the case of IE Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC(Port), Kolkata, where duty exemption was granted under Notification No.94/96-Cus based on the circumstances of the case and proper examination of goods. The Tribunal, following these precedents, set aside the duty demand and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief as per the law. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the duty demand and allowing the appeal based on the fulfillment of export obligations, compliance with notification requirements, and entitlement to duty exemption under the relevant notifications and legal precedents.
|
