2022 (10) TMI 69 - AT - Customs

Re-import of jewellery exported for exhibition - Benefit of exemption - sale or transfer of property was involved in the goods or not - jewellery - exemption under Sl.No.5 of the Table in Notification No.45/2017-Cus - demand alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT - It is admitted fact that there was error in mentioning in the shipping bill at the time of export, that the same is filed under claim of refund of IGST. The admitted fact is that there being no sale in the transaction, neither the IGST is paid by the appellant nor they had claimed refund for it. These facts are not in dispute. Thus, the appellant has rightly filed the bill of entry claiming the exemption under Sl.No.5 of the Table to the said notification. Further it is found that the whole exercise is academic as no Revenue loss has occurred. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.45/2017-Customs regarding exemption on re-import of goods.
2. Application of IGST on export and re-import of jewellery for exhibition purposes.
3. Discrepancy in mentioning IGST payment on shipping bill leading to duty demand and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Notification No.45/2017-Customs concerning the exemption on re-import of goods. The appellant, engaged in jewellery manufacturing, exported jewellery for exhibition purposes and later re-imported the same. The notification specified conditions for exemption, including the requirement that if the assessee has availed the benefit of refund of IGST at the time of export, such amount shall not be exempted upon re-import. The Customs Authority granted out of charge after being satisfied with compliance to the notification's conditions.

2. The issue of IGST application on export and re-import of jewellery was raised due to a discrepancy in the shipping bill where the appellant erroneously mentioned IGST payment, which was not actually paid. The Revenue contended that the appellant was eligible for exemption under a different category in the notification, leading to a demand for duty payment and penalty imposition. The appellant argued that no IGST was paid at the time of export for exhibition purposes, and they had not applied for a refund, emphasizing that no revenue loss occurred as no sale was involved in the transaction.

3. The Commissioner's findings highlighted that the appellant had not received any IGST refund due to non-transmission of data from GSTN, rendering the refund pending. The Commissioner referred to circulars providing alternative mechanisms to resolve such issues. Ultimately, the Commissioner acknowledged the error in mentioning IGST claim on the shipping bill, noting that no IGST was paid or refunded due to the absence of a sale in the transaction. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was deemed entitled to consequential benefits, if any, as no revenue loss had transpired.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the intricate legal considerations surrounding the interpretation of the notification, the application of IGST in export and re-import scenarios, and the resolution of discrepancies leading to duty demands and penalty impositions.