9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 kgs of South India BP1 Tea STD 156 to M/s. Van Rees B.V., Netherland against Ex-bond shipping Bill No.1257224 dated 29.07.2004 under Post-DEPB Scheme. Since the goods were not accepted by the foreign buyer due to discrepancy in the blending, the appellant had to recall the cargo back to India; therefore they did not claim any DEPB benefit. The goods were reimported for blending and correction against Bill of Entry No.156633 dated 17.03.2005 for re-export claiming benefit of Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.1995. The said goods were cleared duty free, in terms of Notification No.158/95-Cust dated 14.11.1995 on execution of re-export bond with Customs. After reprocessing of the goods, they reexported the same against two shipping bills No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e part of the export cargo and after being satisfied on inspection of the goods that goods exported were part of the returned cargo, allowed export of the said goods. In both the shipping bills which were for 22880 kgs. each returned cargo used were 10450 kgs. in each shipping bill which was specifically mentioned in the invoice and packing list and export related documents. He has submitted that the appellant had completed and fulfilled their export obligation in exporting the goods after re-processing. He has submitted that the goods were returned and exported by them for the parties were governed by Notification No.94/96, there was no duty on the import of the goods; thus execution of bond under Notification No.158/95 was uncalled for. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said goods were imported against Bill of Entry dated 17.03.2005 for re-export claiming benefit of Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.1995. It is also not in dispute that after processing the goods, the same were re-exported within the prescribed period of limitation under Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.1995 against shipping bills dated 20.04.2005 and 23.04.2005. Also, in each of the shipping bills, against which re-export was done, the appellant had specifically mentioned as "Returned cargo Used-10452 kgs (cleared vide B/E No.156633 dt. 17.03.2005)". The goods have been exported after due verification by the Customs authorities. In these factual scenarios, allegation that the appellant had not followed the procedure in identifying goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under the DEPB scheme, it can be safely presumed, that at least description of the goods in question have been properly examined and on that basis it is possible to conclude that the Appellants have satisfied the condition under Notification No. 158/95. In any case, as argued by the ld. Sr. Advocate, the Appellants are independently entitled to exemption from duty under Notification No. 94/96 as held by the cited decisions of the Tribunal since they had not availed of any duty drawback, DEPB benefit etc. in view of entry at Sl. No. 3 of the said Notification. Therefore, even if, identity of the goods is held to be not established on account of the Appellants not intimating the Department regarding re-export, no duty would be chargeable i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
