2018 (8) TMI 502 - AT - Customs

Re-import of export consignments - extension of time for re-import of goods - N/N. 94/96-Cus dt. 16.12.1996 - whether the extension of time for the re-importation of goods by the appellant is under the aforesaid notification or not? - Held that - The consignment has been exported after the re-importation to the buyer in Vietnam and also appellant has deposited the DEPB-benefit to the Department and hence, there is no loss to the Revenue - In this case, export consignment could not pass the test of FDA, and accordingly, the appellant has no option for re-importation of goods which has done in this case. The Commissioner order of refusal of extension of time of re-importation is not correct. This is one of the deserving case where the extension of time is required to be allowed in the facts and circumstances of the case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of time for re-importation of goods under Notification No. 94/96-Cus.
2. Rejection of export consignment by FDA.
3. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 94/96 as amended.
4. Assessment order by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner.
5. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS/CKP/242/2010.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata, based on the rejection of the extension of time for re-importation of goods beyond one year. The appellant had exported goods under the DEPB Scheme to the USA, which were rejected by the importer due to FDA test failure. The appellant reimported the goods after a year and claimed benefits under Notification No. 94/96-Cus, which required reimportation within one year. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand, leading to the appeal.

2. The key contention was the rejection of the extension of time for re-importation by the Commissioner (Port) and the subsequent demand of customs duty. The appellant argued that the goods were reexported to Vietnam and that there was evidence of FDA rejection. The Departmental Representative highlighted the lack of proof for FDA rejection and emphasized the late approach of the appellant after the Show Cause Notice was issued. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, noting the FDA test failure and the necessity of re-importation, overturning the Commissioner's order.

3. Another linked issue was Appeal No. 359/10 against the denial of benefits under Notification No. 94/96 as amended by the Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal reviewed both appeals and examined the extension of time for re-importation under the notification. It was revealed that the goods were re-exported to Vietnam, DEPB benefits were deposited, and there was no revenue loss. The Tribunal, after considering the email exchanges and circumstances, allowed the appeals, disagreeing with the refusal of the extension of time by the Commissioner.

4. The Tribunal concluded that the extension of time for re-importation should be allowed in this deserving case due to the FDA test failure and the actions taken by the appellant. The order of the Commissioner was set aside, and both appeals were allowed, ensuring justice in light of the facts and circumstances presented during the proceedings.