9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (2) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mponents for Footwear'. The description of the goods on the documents accompanying the Bill of Entry, such as Invoice, Airway Bill/Bill of Landing, Packing list etc. was mentioned as `Components for footwear'. These consignments were brought inside the NEPZ and examined by the Customs. On examination of the 3 consignments, they were found to contain Complete footwear instead of Components of footwear as declared by them. They also availed exemption from whole of Customs duty in terms of Notification No. 339/85-Cus., dated 21-11-1985, as amended. These imported complete footwear were exported by them to USSR on 26-11-1986, 8-1-1987 and 11-2-1987 without undergoing any process of manufacture. As per Notification 339/85-Cus. dated 21-11-1985, exemption is granted to specified goods listed in Annexure to the said notification from whole of duty of customs and Additional duty of Customs when imported into India by an importer having manufacturing unit inside NOIDA Export Processing Zone subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions for such exemption, as stipulated in the said notification, is that the goods so imported will be used for production of goods for export outside Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f time-bar. 2. The learned Counsel Shri V. Sridharan, appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are not contesting the finding that the goods imported are not really component parts but were fully finished footwears. However, the appellants would strongly contest the raising of the demands for duty. The learned Counsel pointed out that in this case there has been no clearance of home consumption at all. The goods were re-exported in the same condition. The learned Counsel also questioned the Collector's findings that the goods were released under bond for fulfilment of end-use condition and he submitted that there was no bond taken in respect of the three Bills of Entry which are involved in this case. There is no reference to clearance under bond on the Bills of entry themselves. The reasoning given on this basis by the Collector in para 10.1 of the impugned order is without basis. The perusal of the Bills of Entry concerned would show that there is no reference to Notification No. 339/85 therein and hence question of the Bill of Entry being assessed under Notification No. 339/85 and granting exemption will not arise. The learned counsel submitted that the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Vulcan Engineers Ltd. v. CC, Bombay reported at 1992 (62) E.L.T. 636 (Tri.) = 1992 (43) ECR 22 wherein it was held that in a case where the components were exported without carrying out any process of manufacturing on the imported item are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 44/87-Cus. because the basic stipulation in the notification has not been fulfilled. That was a case of the DEEC Scheme wherein the goods are exempted for the export product. The same ratio would apply in the facts of the present case, as urged by the learned SDR. 4. The learned counsel replied that the Notification being conditional does not make assessment provisional, there has to be a separate order under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 for provisional assessment. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and the learned SDR and perused the case records as well as the Collector's findings which were produced by the learned SDR before us. We find that all the three Bills of entry concerned in this case are for home consumption and have been assessed to duty. There is an indication of the duty amount involved with the remarks that this was the amo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 339/85. The very fact that the appellants are a unit approved for establishing themselves in the EPZ and have duly imported the goods and registered the documents starting from Bill of Entry at the EPZ would show that they are operating under the scheme as envisaged under the Notification. As has been pointed out by the learned SDR that conditions (iv) and (v) of the Notification are very clear and casting the obligation on the importer to execute the bond in such form has been prescribed by the Development Commissioner of the Zone to fulfil export obligation and to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the notification and also casting the obligation on them to use the imported material within the Zone for production of goods for export. This was the understanding under which the matter was processed in the office of the Development Commissioner as also is evident from the record. In fact the record show that the Development Commissioner was also of the view that the consignment does not fulfil the condition relating to value addition. On this basis, the Development Commissioner has said that the goods may be exported after informing the party that the prescribed value addition sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
