Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2023 (1) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... D Mandideep (Bhopal) for clearance of purportedly re-imported goods (calcined Petroleum Coke) which were claimed to have been exported against SB No. 1275899 dated 1.12.2017, on the grounds of rejection of the goods by the Buyer, and were accompanied with re-export invoice no. SBCP-53/2019 dated 21.01.2020 issued by M/s NAJD STEEL, Riyadh. (ii) It was observed during routine physical verification of the goods that: * Most of the bags were un-marked. * 42 bags were exported vide SB No. 1275899 dtd. 1.12.2017 and only 20 jumbo bags were re-imported, and all the jumbo bags were in open condition and the weight of each and every bag deviated from that mentioned in Shipping Bill. * Total weight of purportedly re-imported goods was found .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5/2017- Customs dated 30.06.2017, in the case of goods exported under the Duty Exemption Scheme or Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme or Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme or any reward scheme of Chapter 3 of Foreign Trade Policy, re-importation, of such goods are allowed within 1 year of exportation. The exporter had availed the benefit of MEIS scheme and therefore the importer had availed reward scheme. (vi) In terms of MOEF guidelines for regulation and monitoring of imported Petcoke in India, import of petcoke for use as fuel is prohibited. Further, consent issued by the concerned SPCB/PCC shall clearly specify the quantity permitted for import and its use on a per month and or per annum basis-. Only registered industrial units with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d on contest and the goods were absolutely confiscated being 19,506.20 kg of CPC valued at Rs. 6,06,156.22/-. Further penalty of Rs. 6,06,156/- was imposed under Section 112(b) of the Act. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide impugned Order-in-Appeal have been pleased to reject the appeal. Being aggrieved, the appellant exporter (re-importer) have filed present the appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arun Goel, inter alia urges that this is a case of re-import by the appellant who had exported the goods to the actual user-NAJD Steel, Saudi Arabia. However, as they found part of the goods not suitable, they have returned part of the goods after n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, on the importation thereof. Further, notification 45/2017-Cus dated 30.06.2017 exempts goods falling under any Chapter of the Customs Tariff Act when re-imported into India, from so much of the duty of the customs leviable thereon, as well as the whole of integrated tax, compensation cess leviable. Below the table in the said notification, conditions precedent are mentioned. As per condition no. (b), goods other than goods exported under any incentive scheme can be re-imported within three years after their exportation or within such extended period, not extending two years, as the Principal Commissioner of Customs, on sufficient cause being shown for the delay, may be allowed. Further, condition Clause (d) mentions that the goods are th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... inspection report wherein, the customs officers were of the view that the goods claimed to be reimported do not appear to be the same goods, in absence of marking on the Jumbo bags. Further, it appeared to the customs that the appellant have taken benefit of MEIS scheme and they were entitled to import only within one year of export or extended period as may have been allowed. 11. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) have recorded the findings that the appellant had purchased the goods for export and on being rejected by the buyer in Saudi Arabia, the goods have been re-imported and admittedly, appellant have not availed any export benefit on the impugned goods. Thus, I find that both the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates