2013 (10) TMI 1200 - AT - Customs

Re-export - Benefit of Notification No.158/95 - violation to the condition of Notification No.158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995. The appellant although re-imported the goods on 14.12.2011 did not make application within 6 months thereof Held that - During pendency of appeal to ascertain reason of delay, it is only possible to state that there should not be withholding of goods by the Customs for re-export, because authority by an order did not bring out loss of identity of the goods earlier exported meant to be re-exported - Execution of the Bond and Bank Guarantee has already been en-cashed as is revealed by adjudication order. Whether the re-export is a new export or the same goods earlier exported on 29.01.2011 and 30th March, 2011 are meant to be re-exported shall be looked into in the course of regular appeal hearing - Present interim order is passed not to withhold the goods further so as to prevent undue hardship to the assessee - re-export allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Extension of time for re-export of goods under Notification No.158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995.
2. Violation of conditions leading to the denial of the extension application.
3. Delay in clearance of re-imported goods and subsequent re-export process.
4. Withholding of goods by Customs and the impact on the re-export process.

Analysis:

1. The appellant sought an extension of time for re-export of goods under Notification No.158/95-Cus dated 14.11.1995 due to the re-import of goods on specific dates. The application for extension was made within the 6-month period before expiry, highlighting the pressure from the importer abroad for re-export. The appellant faced hardship as the goods were subjected to duty assessment without the benefit of the said notification.

2. The Revenue objected to the re-export citing a violation of conditions under the notification, as the application for extension was not made within 6 months of re-import. The adjudication was confirmed based on this violation, leading to the denial of the extension application and potential consequences for the appellant.

3. The factual aspect revealed a delay in the clearance of re-imported goods, causing a lapse from both sides. The appellant applied for extension before the expiry of the 6-month period, presenting the goods for re-export within the specified timeline. The delay in clearance and subsequent re-export process raised concerns regarding the identity of the goods and the potential impact on the re-export.

4. An interim order was passed to prevent undue hardship to the appellant by not withholding the goods further for re-export. The Customs Authority was instructed to act expeditiously, ensuring proper inventory and record-keeping of the goods to facilitate a detailed assessment during the regular appeal hearing scheduled for a future date. The impact on both sides' interests was to be thoroughly examined during the appeal hearing to determine the nature of re-export and its implications.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues surrounding the extension of time for re-export, violation of conditions, delays in clearance, and the Customs' role in facilitating the re-export process while safeguarding the interests of both parties involved.