TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods had been presented to the customs for re-export on 27/11/12, in our view the goods should be treated as having been exported within a period of one year and the benefit of notification should be extended as the notification stipulates the re-export within a period of six months period which can be further extended by the Commissioner by another six months and just because the Commissioner in this case has chosen just to sit over the appellant's request for extension and not take any decision, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that they failed to re-export within the extended period in terms of the notification. The another plea of the Department is that it is the date of IGM -dated 24/11/11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (b) the goods are re-exported within six months of the date of re-import or within such extended period not exceeding further period of six months allowed by the Commissioner ; (c) The Assistant Commissioner is satisfied as regards the identity of the goods ; and (d) The importer at the time of importation executes a bond undertaking to re-export of the goods after repair/reconditioning and pay on demand in the event of failure to re-export, an amount equal to the difference between the duty levied at the time of re-import and the duty leviable on such goods at the time of re-importation but for exemption. 1.2 The appellant in respect of the goods re-imported for repairs furnished the required bond backed by the ban ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ider it. 1.4 On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 24/01/13 while ordering the re-export of the goods decided not to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner's order regarding levy of duty at the time of re-import, on the ground that the goods were not re-exported within the period stipulated in the notification. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Sudhir Malhotra , Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the goods had been re-imported sometime towards end of November 2011 and the bill of entry for the clearance of the goods was filed on 14/12/11, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Jain, the learned Departmental Representative, defending the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) pleaded that since the date of IGM is 24/11/11, it is this date which is to be treated as the date of importation of the goods and since the goods were presented for re-export on 27/11/12, in any case, the re-export has been made after the expiry of one year and, therefore, the appellant would not be eligible for the exemption Notification No.158/95-CUS. He also pleaded that since the Commissioner had not granted extension, the appellant were required to re-export by 23/05/12, while the goods were presented for export on 27/11/12. He, therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort within a period of six months period which can be further extended by the Commissioner by another six months and just because the Commissioner in this case has chosen just to sit over the appellant's request for extension and not take any decision, the benefit of the exemption cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that they failed to re-export within the extended period in terms of the notification. The another plea of the Department is that it is the date of IGM -dated 24/11/11 which has to be treated as the date of import. In our view this plea is not acceptable, as the IGMs can be filed under prior entry system even before the arrival of the vessel and, therefore, the date of IGM cannot be treated as the date of import. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
