2024 (10) TMI 1361 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003 on goods re-imported after one year - re-import of 6000 kg. Coarse Ground Chilli which was originally exported - Department was of the view that since said part consignment had been rejected which accordingly would fall under Sr. No.15 of Annexure-I of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003 and re-import was made after one year of the initial export, hence, the benefit of the said Notification not admissible - HELD THAT - The difference between the entry at Sr. No.14 and 15 of the notification is that in the former case, the goods could be re-imported for repair or reconditioning, irrespective of whether the overseas buyer rejects or fail to take delivery; the re-import could be within three years or seven years as the case may from the date of import, and also time limit is prescribed for re-export after the process of repair or reconditioning; whereas, under Sr. No.15, the goods could be re-imported if the same is rejected or not accepted by the buyer; within a period of one year from the date of export. It could be cleared to Domestic Tariff Are (DTA), if permissible under law but there is condition for re-export of the same. Thus, Sr. No.14 and 15 can be applied to the re-imported goods depending on the purpose and circumstances for which different time period prescribed under each of the said entry. Further, it is significant to note that there are two classes of goods prescribed under Sr. No. 14 ; (i) goods that are mentioned under Annexure-VII and (ii) goods falling outside the scope of Annexure-VII, for the purpose of applying the period of limitation to re-imported goods. In these circumstances, there are no merit in the impugned order of the authorities below observing that the goods rejected by the foreign buyer would invariably fall under Sr. No.15 of Annexure-I even though the appellant specifically advanced a request for repair or reconditioning for the purpose of re-export, as permitted to the type of goods (other than goods specified in Annexure VII) under Sr. No.14. Thus the benefit of Notification 52/2003 Cus. dated 31.03.2003 (Sr. No.14(i) of Annexure-I) is admissible on the re-imported goods. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Entitlement to benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003 on re-imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding the re-import of 6000 kg of 'Coarse Ground Chilli' that was initially exported but rejected by the overseas buyer due to variation in granulation.

2. Appellant's Argument:
The appellant contended that the goods could be re-imported for repair or reconditioning as per Sr. No.14 of Annexure-I of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003, without any distinction between types of goods. They intended to reprocess and re-export the goods, seeking the benefit of the Notification.

3. Revenue's Argument:
The Revenue argued that since a part of the consignment was rejected by the overseas buyer, it falls under Sr. No.15 of Annexure-I of the Notification, as the re-import was done after one year from the initial export.

4. Examination of the Notification:
Sr. No.14 allows re-import of goods within three or seven years for repair or reconditioning, with a condition to re-export within one year. Sr. No.15 permits re-import within one year from export in case of rejection or failure of the foreign buyer to take delivery, without a re-export condition.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal found that the rejected goods were eligible for re-import under Sr. No.14(i) of Annexure-I as they were intended for repair and re-export, not falling under Sr. No.15. The authorities' decision was deemed incorrect, and the benefit of the Notification was granted to the appellant.

6. Conclusion:
The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief as per law, based on the interpretation of the Notification and the purpose of re-importing the goods for repair and re-export.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, the arguments presented by both parties, the examination of the relevant Notification, the Tribunal's decision, and the final conclusion granting the benefit of the Notification to the appellant.