9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orized Representative for the Respondent ORDER PER R. MURALIDHAR : The Appellant had exported their goods. Due to their rejection by the overseas importer, these goods were re-imported in India. At the time of re-import, the Appellant has opted to get the benefit of Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01/04/2002. As per this Notification, the re-imported goods have to be re-exported within six ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the Appellant has re-exported the goods only after three years. Since Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01/04/2002 is a conditional Notification, the conditions specified therein have to be fully complied with by the importer in order to enjoy the exempted benefit. 5. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned OIA has given the following findings:- I went through the order of the adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of. It is clear from the facts and statements of the appeal that the period of 6 month for re-export by the appellant is over long back. The appellant did not submit any application to the competent authority for the extension of the period to one year, and did re-export after three years of the limit of extended period gets over, thus prima facie the Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01/04/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
