2015 (12) TMI 405 - AT - Customs

Benefit of Notification No. 2/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 by treating the system as Treatment Planning System - Re-export of goods declared as Ci Navigation System - Held that - Commissioner has given a categorical finding that there was no mis-declaration of the goods and claiming of the benefit of Notification cannot be called mis-statement. He has also recorded that an identical machine was allowed the benefit of the notification in Mumbai port. As such, it has to be held that the importer held a bonafide belief that they were entitled to the benefit of exemption notification. Accordingly he has accepted the importer s prayer that if duty has to be paid on the said machine, it would not be economical for them to get the same cleared and hence has allowed re-export of the same. - if an identical machine was allowed the benefit of the Notification at Mumbai port, the same would lead to a bonafide belief on the part of the importer to claim the benefit of exemption notification. It is only for economical reasons that importer did not want the machine to be cleared on payment of duty and requested for re-export of the same. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order allowing re-export of goods declared as "Ci Navigation System" under Notification No. 2/2002-Cus.
2. Allegation of mis-declaration and entitlement to benefit of exemption notification.
3. Dispute regarding imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner allowing re-export of goods declared as "Ci Navigation System" under Notification No. 2/2002-Cus. The Revenue contended that the goods did not qualify as a "Treatment Planning System" under the said notification. The Commissioner, however, found no mis-declaration and noted that a similar machine was allowed the benefit of the notification at Mumbai port, leading to a bonafide belief on the part of the importer. The Commissioner allowed re-export based on this belief, as paying duty would not be economical for the importer.

2. The Commissioner's order was challenged by the Revenue on the grounds that no redemption fine or penalty was imposed. The Commissioner had concluded that there was no mis-declaration, and the importer's claim of benefit under the notification was not a mis-statement. The Revenue failed to rebut the Commissioner's findings, which supported the importer's bonafide belief in claiming the exemption. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner that the importer's request for re-export based on the belief of entitlement to the exemption was justified, considering the precedent at Mumbai port. The Tribunal found no legal flaw in the Commissioner's decision and rejected the Revenue's appeal.

3. The dispute regarding the imposition of redemption fine and penalty was addressed by the Commissioner, who considered the absence of mis-declaration and the importer's bonafide belief in claiming the exemption. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the importer's genuine belief supported by the precedent of an identical machine being allowed the benefit of the notification at another port. The Tribunal found no grounds to support the Revenue's appeal and rejected it, affirming the decision to allow re-export without imposing any additional fines or penalties.