TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 158/95-CUS could be denied for failure to re-export the re-imported goods within the stipulated period when the request for extension was not decided by the Customs authorities. (ii) Whether the date of filing the IGM could be treated as the date of import for determining the period for re-export.
Issue (i): Whether exemption under Notification No. 158/95-CUS could be denied for failure to re-export the re-imported goods within the stipulated period when the request for extension was not decided by the Customs authorities.
Analysis: The goods had been re-imported for repair and re-export, the bond and bank guarantee were furnished, and there was no dispute about identity. The Customs authorities, however, cleared the goods only after a substantial delay. The appellant sought extension of time for re-export, but no decision was taken on that request. The notification permitted re-export within six months, extendable by another six months, and the absence of a decision on extension could not be used to defeat the exemption when the goods were presented for re-export within one year of import-related filing and the delay was attributable to administrative inaction.
Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the date of filing the IGM could be treated as the date of import for determining the period for re-export.
Analysis: The Department relied on the IGM date to contend that the re-export was beyond the permissible period. The Tribunal held that an IGM may be filed under the prior entry system even before arrival of the vessel, so the IGM date could not be treated as the date of import. The relevant date would be the grant of entry inward, which was not shown to support the Department's objection.
Conclusion: The IGM date was not the date of import for this purpose, and the Department's objection failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the order denying exemption was set aside, and the benefit of the notification was directed to be extended.
Ratio Decidendi: When re-export is delayed because the Customs authorities do not decide a pending request for extension of time, exemption under the re-import notification cannot be denied on the ground of non-compliance with the re-export period, and the IGM date is not necessarily the date of import for computing that period.
TaxTMI 
