2016 (11) TMI 220 - AT - Customs

Re-import for repair - export after repair - Denial of exemption under N/N. 158/95-Cus. dated 14.11.95 - whether the denial of exemption on the ground that re-imported goods not exported within six months, and further six months if extension sought, justified? - Held that - the shipping bill for the re-export of the goods was admittedly filed within 1 year. As regard second shipping bill that was filed by the appellant only in order to comply the requirement of computer system. Therefore it cannot be said that the date of filing of shipping bill is online shipping bill but it is continuation of the first shipping bill filed by the appellant. Therefore the shipping bill was filed within one year for export of the goods. Extension of six months period - Held that - the bond executed under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. has been extended and such extension has been accepted by the Revenue. In this fact the period of six months for re-export of the goods stand extended till the validity of the extended period of the bond. Therefore it cannot be said that the appellant has violated the condition prescribed under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. - since the bond executed for the purpose of Notification No. 158/95 has been extended it is as good as the period for re-export of the goods also stand extended - denial of exemption not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Eligibility of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. for re-import of goods
- Extension of time for re-export of goods
- Applicability of alternative exemption notification No. 94/96-Cus.

Eligibility of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. for re-import of goods:
The appellant re-imported goods earlier exported for repair but failed to re-export them within the stipulated six-month period as per Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The adjudicating authority denied exemption due to this violation. The appellant argued that they filed the shipping bill for export within one year of re-import and applied for an extension, which was accepted by the department. The Tribunal observed that the first shipping bill was filed within one year, and the subsequent filing was due to a system requirement, not a delay on the appellant's part. The bond extension was also accepted, extending the re-export period. The Tribunal distinguished previous judgments, stating the extended bond period equated to an extension of the re-export time, making the appellant eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus.

Extension of time for re-export of goods:
The appellant successfully argued that the extension of the bond under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. was accepted by the Revenue, effectively extending the period for re-export of the goods until the validity of the extended bond. This extension, coupled with the timely filing of the shipping bill within one year, demonstrated compliance with the conditions for re-export, leading to the Tribunal allowing the appeal.

Applicability of alternative exemption notification No. 94/96-Cus.:
The appellant also claimed eligibility under the alternative exemption notification No. 94/96-Cus., which did not prescribe a time limit for re-export. The appellant contended that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the admissibility of this notification. While the Tribunal found prima facie eligibility under No. 94/96-Cus., they focused on the appellant's entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. due to the extended bond period. The Tribunal kept the issue related to No. 94/96-Cus. open but set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the appellant's eligibility under Notification No. 158/95-Cus.