AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the parties.
The issue involved in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996.
The appellant is having IEC No. 1307006124, have exported organic ginger slices in quantity of 15 MT vide shipping Bill No. 1847508 dated
17.07.2015, from ICD â€" Thar Dry Port, Jodhpur. The said shipping bill was filed under duty drawback scheme and the appellant availed duty
drawback of Rs. 48,360/-. The appellant also intended to claim reward under Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS) on the said export.
The appellant subsequently filed Bill of entry No. 5484592 dated 06.02.2016 for re-import of the said 15 MT of organic ginger slices and claimed
benefit of S.No.2 of the Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14.11.1995 and executed bond No. 2001046560 dated 04.06.2016 for Rs. 21,00,000/-.
Custom duty amount to Rs. 19,59,087/- involved in the re-import of the said goods was debited in the said bond. As per condition No. 2 of the
Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14.11.1995, re-imported goods should be re-exported within six months from the date of re-importation, or such
extended period not exceeding a further period of six months as the Commissioner of Customs may allow.
The appellant was asked by the department vide letter dated 22.10.2018 to submit proof of re-export. In turn the appellant vide their letter dated
19.11.2018 informed that due to some reasons, they could not process the said goods and failed to fulfil the condition of the notification. The appellant
requested to allow switch over to avail benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16.12.1996. But the request was not accepted on the ground that
the originally the said goods were exported under MEIS, which is not covered in the Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16.12.1996.
As per Revenue, the appellant had failed to fulfil the condition of notification No.158/95-Cus., and since they have not fulfilled the condition of duty
free import allowed by the department, therefore, vide Notice VIII-48(03) ICD/ Umalaxmi/ TDP/JDR/ 2019/3987 dt. 25.05.2019, the duty of
Rs.19,59,087/- foregone on re-import of goods was proposed to be recovered as per conditions of the bond.
Learned Counsel urges, it is relevant to mention that the appellant have also repaid the amount of duty drawback by challan dated 10.06.2019 with
interest and also repaid the benefit under the MEIS by separate challan dated 10.06.2019 with interest, which is not disputed. Further, the appellant
prayed that Notification No. 94/96-Cus. dated 16.12.1996, wherein it is provided that in case of re-import by an exporter, which was made under duty
drawback rebate of duty or under bond/ DEEC/EPCG, the custom duty payable on re-import shall be limited to so much of the duty of customs
leviable thereon, which is specified in the schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, the amount in excess of the amount as indicated in Column 3 of the
Notification, shall be exempted. Column 2 in the table specifies drawback etc. and in column 3 it is provided - amount of drawback of customs or
excise duty allowed at the time of export, provided that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs is satisfied that the goods are re-imported within three
years after the exportation or within such extended period as the Commissioner of Customs may on sufficient cause being shown for the delay
allowed in the case of goods exported. Further, clause (b) provides that the goods are the same which were exported. Further, clause (c) provides - in
the case of goods falling under Sr. No.2 of the table goods other than those falling under Sl. No.1, exported for repairs abroad and there is no change
in ownership of that goods. Further, provided that nothing contained in notification shall apply to re-imported goods which have been exported.
Admittedly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant had availed duty drawback as well as the MEIS. Duty drawback is specified in
the Column 2 of the table in Notification No. 94/96-Cus. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of this Notification. Thus, in
view of my findings, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The appellant is entitled to consequential benefits, in accordance with
law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court).