Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether re-imported Indian-made goods, originally exported under bond and later intended for domestic sale after cancellation of the export order, were assessable under Notification No. 94/96 rather than Notification No. 158/95.
Analysis: The goods were the same Indian-manufactured goods that had earlier been exported under bond and subsequently re-imported after defects were removed. Notification No. 158/95 applied to re-importation for re-export, while Notification No. 94/96 governed re-importation for sale in India. Once the export order was cancelled, the goods ceased to fall within the scope of Notification No. 158/95 and attracted the terms of Notification No. 94/96. Duty liability is determined by the applicable legal provision and not by an assessee's prior election between unrelated notifications.
Conclusion: The re-imported goods were liable to be assessed under Notification No. 94/96, and the demand based on the contrary view was not sustainable.
Final Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification applicable to re-import for domestic sale, and the excess amount paid was to be adjusted and refunded.
Ratio Decidendi: Liability on re-imported goods depends on the specific notification governing the actual purpose of re-importation, and a notification applicable to re-export cannot be insisted upon once the goods are meant for domestic clearance.