9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Shri R.S. Sangia, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. As per facts on record, the appellants had initially exported 47 MT of Dextrose Anhydrous vide shipping Bill No. 1028856 dated 5-10-2001 under the DEEC scheme. Out of the aforesaid 47 MT, 19 MT of the said goods was re-imported and assessed under Bill of Entry No. 3408 dated 24-5-2003 by extending benefit of notification No. 84/96-Cus., dated 16-12-1996 after condonation of delay in the period of re-import from the date of export by the Commissioner of Customs. Thereafter, the appellant imported another consignment of 17.625 MT of the said goods and filed Bill of Entry No. 3636 dated 19-1-2004 claiming the benefit of the exemption Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the DEEC book did not change the status of the export under DEEC availed by the appellant at the time of export of the subject cargo. The de-logging under Sr. No. 2(e) of the said Notification and not for changing the status of the export cargo from one scheme to the other scheme. She further observed that the importer s contention that de-logging of DEEC book and condition of prescribed time limit for re-import were mutually exclusive conditions is not having any bearing on the issue involved in the case. The subject re-import was very well covered under Sr. No. 2(e) and first proviso (a) to the table annexed to the said Notification. Therefore, she denied the benefit of notification 94/96 on the import of 17.625 MT of Dextrose Anhydrous ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade under DEEC scheme, which was subsequently de-logged. It is also on record, as observed in order of the Comimissioner (Appeals) that time limit for re-import of exported goods under DEEC scheme was only one year but the time for re-import was extended by the Commissioner of Customs, as per proviso of notification and the appellant was granted the benefit of notification, when they de-logged the entry for export relating to the goods in DEEC book. However, he has observed that the question for consideration as to whether such de-logging changed the nature of the shipping bill under which the goods were exported, which was admittedly a DEEC shipping bill. We find that an identical issue was considered by the Tribunal in the case of Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
