TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Tribunal Upholds EOU's Duty Exemption for Fair Display</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JODHPUR Versus SETHIA HANDICRAFTS (P) LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JODHPUR Versus SETHIA HANDICRAFTS (P) LTD. - 2011 (271) E.L.T. 425 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Import of goods by a 100% EOU for display at a fair on a returnable basis.2. Claim of clearance without payment of duty under the Foreign Trade Policy.3. Dispute regarding exemption from customs duty for re-imported goods.4. Interpretation of the law for allowing import by an EOU without duty payment.5. Applicability of circulars and notifications regarding the definition of 'manufacture' for export-oriented units.6. Justifiability of the lower authorities' orders and rejection of the Revenue's appeal.Analysis:1. The case involves the import of goods by a 100% Export-Oriented Unit (EOU) for display at a fair in Singapore on a returnable basis. The goods were imported through ICD Concor, Jodhpur, and the appellant claimed clearance without payment of duty under para 2.29 of the Handbook of Procedure of Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09.2. The dispute arose when the exemption from customs duty was not granted to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed a duty of Rs. 1,80,548/- for the re-imported goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, noting that the imported goods were exempt from customs duties under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus., dated 31-3-2003, as the goods were to be used for a manufacturing process as per para 9.37 of the policy.3. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, finding no infirmity in it. The appellant relied on Board's Circular No. 314/30/97-CX, which clarified that the term 'manufacture' for export purposes is broader than that in the Central Excise Act, and certain processes like galvanizing would amount to manufacture. This interpretation was supported by previous cases like Winsome Yarns Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh and S.T.L. Exports Ltd. v. CCE, Indore.4. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a broader view in interpreting the provisions of notification No. 1/95-C.E., stating that the exemption should not be restricted only to cases falling under the definition of 'manufacture' in the Central Excise Act. Additionally, para 9.37 of Chapter 9 of the policy and the subsequent export of the goods by the appellant further supported the decision to reject the Revenue's appeal.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no justifiable reasons to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities and accordingly rejected the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the appellant. The case highlights the importance of considering broader interpretations of legal provisions and circulars in matters concerning customs duties and exemptions for export-oriented units.
TaxTMI 