TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1072X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The document that has been presented by the appellant in their support is the examination order of the bill of entry 3736870 dt. 08.06.2011 under which goods were re-imported. But documents for export do not declare re-export after re-import. Admittedly, such a declaration would have engendered examination to be done in presence of the Dy./Asstt. Commissioner. Hence, the finding of the Ld. Commissioner that shipping bill did not have any declaration regarding re-export of re-imported goods is also correct. Examination of goods in the presence of proper officer - Held that: - Examination of such a consignment done in the presence of officer of lower rank not only defeats the purpose of this notification but also renders the requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 without payment of duty under Notification No. 158/95-Cus dt. 14.11.1995. The said notification has four conditions out of which condition No. 2 and 3 are relevant for our purpose and are extracted below:- 2. Goods are re-exported within six months of the date of re-importation or such extended period not exceeding a further period of six months a the Commissioner of Customs may allow; 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs, is satisfied as regards identity of the goods. Besides the above conditions, condition No. 4(a) of Notification No. 158/95-Cus lays down that the re-processing of the goods should be done either in factory under Central Excise Control or in the Customs Bond. The goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice to them. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the order of the Ld. Commissioner and emphasised that the conditions of notification had to be read and implemented strictly. 5. Heard the parties and examined the records. 6. We find that that the adjudicating authority has held that the appellants failed to re-export the re-imported goods as per the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus dt. 14.11.1995 on following grounds:- 1. The consignment was not escorted by Preventive Officer from their go-down to Balmer Lawrie (CFS) for re-export; 2. Appellant had not declared that export consignment is in fact re-export consignment after re-import and the same was required to be examined in presence of Deputy/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive Officer did not escort the container from the factory to the CFS. Hence, we find no infirmity in the finding of Ld. Commissioner on this count. 8. On the issue of non-declaration of consignment as re-export consignment, we find that on the shipping documents there is no such declaration. The document that has been presented by the appellant in their support is the examination order of the bill of entry 3736870 dt. 08.06.2011 under which goods were re-imported. But documents for export do not declare re-export after re-import. Admittedly, such a declaration would have engendered examination to be done in presence of the Dy./Asstt. Commissioner. Hence, the finding of the Ld. Commissioner that shipping bill did not have any declaration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, concession or exception have to be construed strictly. In the said case, Hon ble Apex Court held as under:- 22. The law is well settled that a person who claims exemption or concession has to establish that he is entitled to that exemption or concession. A provision providing for an exemption, concession or exception, as the case may be, has to be construed strictly with certain exceptions depending upon the settings on which the provision has been placed in the Statute and the object and purpose to be achieved. If exemption is available on complying with certain conditions, the conditions have to be complied with. The mandatory requirements of those conditions must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, though at times, some latitude ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndition No. 3 is a mandatory condition of the Notification No. 158/95-Cus dt. 14.11.1995 and hence its non-observance is fatal to the appellants plea, particularly in the accentuating circumstances of this case when there was no escorting of the goods by the Preventive Officer from the factory to CFS, and when the declaration about re-export after re-import was not made by the appellants. 14. We also agree with the findings of the Commissioner in Para 24 of the impugned order that even on the basis of documents, the identity of goods was not established. 15. In view of the foregoing, we find that there is no infirmity in the order of the adjudicating authority and the same is upheld. 16. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
