1998 (11) TMI 297 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Determination of liability for import duty on goods re-imported under Central Excise bond and interpretation of Section 20 of Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:

1. Liability for Import Duty: The case involved a consignment of leather footwear re-imported by an appellant under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962. The lower authority contended that the goods were liable for import duty as they were originally exported from bond and were consumer goods listed in the negative list of Imports of Exim Policy 1992-97. The lower authority raised concerns regarding the need for an import license and potential confiscation of the goods.

2. Interpretation of Section 20: The appellant argued that the re-importation was covered under Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the goods were exported under Central Excise Rules and re-imported within the specified time frame. The appellant relied on a judgment from the Madras High Court to support their interpretation that the term 'Bond' in Section 20 encompassed both Customs Bond and Excise Bond. Another Commissioner (Appeals) also supported this interpretation in a separate order-in-appeal.

3. Judicial Precedents: The lower authority disputed the appellant's reliance on the Madras High Court judgment, clarifying that subsequent interpretations by the Commissioner (Appeals) established that 'Bond' in Section 20 included both Customs and Excise Bonds. This interpretation was deemed settled, eliminating the need for further discussion on this point.

4. Confiscation and Penalties: The lower authority adjudicated the case, ordering confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellant was granted the option to redeem the goods by paying a fine and penalty as specified under Section 112 of the Act.

5. Appellate Grounds: The appellant appealed on the grounds that the amended Section 20 of the Customs Act should apply, emphasizing that the re-imported goods were not subject to Customs duty under the amended provisions. The appellant argued that the lower authority's decision contradicted the Madras High Court judgment, which they deemed binding on the Department.

6. Final Decision: Upon review, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) determined that the re-imported goods, being of Indian origin, did not require an import license and were liable to pay Central Excise Duty applicable at the time of re-importation. The decision upheld the lower authority's findings regarding the liability for Central Excise Duty on the re-imported goods.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the liability for import duty on goods re-imported under a Central Excise bond, emphasizing the application of Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the interpretation of the term 'Bond' in this context. The decision highlighted the importance of judicial precedents and established the obligation to pay Central Excise Duty on re-imported goods of Indian origin.