TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 1499X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption notification number 94/96 Cus. Thus, the appeal is allowed in favour of the appellant with consequential benefits. We direct the concerned authority, the Commissioner of Customs, C.S.I. Airport, Mumbai to release the goods in question, within seven days of receipt or production of a copy of this order. The impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. C/89676/13 - Mum - Final Order No. A/493/2015-WZB/CB - Dated:- 26-2-2015 - SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri S.P. Mathew, Advocate Shri Ajay Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri M.S. Reddy, Dy. Commr. (A.R.) ORD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d before 18/12/2012, and there was a delay of about 126 days in the subject re-import. The subject goods having assessable value of ₹ 1,36,67,674/- where held liable to confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penal action under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said goods were not cleared, as such were put up for adjudication. The appellant waived the show cause notice and filed written submissions. It was contended that the time limit for import of the goods, exported under free shipping bills, as prescribed in notification number 94/96 (serial number 3) is 3 years and the re-import is permitted at nil duty, subject to the conditions that there is no change in the ownership of the goods and the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y first came to light at the time of examination by the examining officer. It was further observed that the goods under question were sold to one and M/s Saboo Fine Jewels, as such there was change in ownership of the goods and that the benefit of notification cannot be given to the appellants. It was held that the appellants have done or omitted to do acts, which acts or omissions rendered the said goods liable to confiscation under section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 6. The Commissioner took notice of section 20 of the Customs Act which reads as follows - Sec. 20 Re-importation of goods If goods are imported into India after exportation therefrom, such goods shall be liable to duty and be subject to all the conditions and res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt invoices and certified photographs thereof, at the time of export. Accordingly there is no reason for denying the benefit of exemption as provided under serial number 3 of the notification. The only reason stated in the impugned order holding the appellants disentitled to the said exemption is that there was a change in the ownership of goods. It is further urged that from the said notification, it is evident, the Commissioner examined the eligibility of exemption vide serial number-3 of the said notification, but while recording the reasons for denying the exemption he relied on proviso (C) thereof which applies to goods falling under serial number-2 of the said notification and nowhere relates to goods falling under serial number-3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecessary to do so in public interest exempts the following goods subject to conditions 1. Goods exported under claim for drawback, rebate, etc. 2. Goods other than Sr. No.-1, exported for repairs. 3. Goods other than those falling under serial number 1 and 2. Provided that the Asst Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that (a) the goods (other than the goods exported under the duty exemption scheme etc. are re-imported within 3 years after their exportation or within such extended period, not exceeding 2 years, as the Commissioner of Customs may on sufficient cause being shown for the delay, allow, and in the case of goods exported under the duty exemption scheme etc., re-importation of such goods takes place within one ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|