9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 41803, dated 29-3-1994 and re-imported vide Bill of Entry No. 13153, dated 27-10-1994. Appellant claimed clearance of the goods under Section 20 of Customs Act, 1962. The goods were exported under bond against AR 4A No. 1/BE/FV/94-95, dated 8-4-1994. As per examination report the identity of the goods was established with respect to export documents. 3. Lower authority held that since goods originally were exported from bond and the same were excluded from the first provision of the Section 20 of Customs Act, 1962, therefore the said goods were liable to import duty. It also appeared that the impugned goods were consumer goods covered under para 156(A) of the negative list of Imports of Exim Policy 1992-97 and required an import lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der-in-Appeal No. 222/95-BCH, Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the Madras High Court judgment while holding that the word `Bond' in Section 20 does not merely mean Customs Bond but also Central Excise Bond. The fact is that while the Madras High Court in its order of 1989 held that the word `Bond' in the then existing Section 20 meant only Customs Bond, Commissioner (Appeals) while referring to that judgment, has discussed and analysed the issue in detail and arrived at the conclusion that the word `Bond' in Section 20 as applicable to the issue decided upon by him meant not only Customs Bond but also Central Excise Bond. The same view was also held by another Commissioner (Appeals) in yet another Order-in-Appeal No. 151/94-BCH. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lified exported goods from duty free re-importation if the same had been exported under Excise Bond without payment of excise duty. But in the amended Section 20, no such reference to excise bond has been clearly mentioned. 3. The appellants submitted that their case was governed by the amended Section 20 inasmuch as in this case re-importation had taken place on 6-10-1994 by which time the amended Section 20 was in force. Since the appellants had not exported the goods under Customs bond, they were governed by Clause (c) of amended Section 20 and therefore, they had not to pay any Customs duty on the re-imported goods as they were not subject to the restrictions provided for in the main text of Section 20, which means that the re-imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
