2015 (10) TMI 2391 - AT - Customs

Import duty upheld for non-compliance with reimportation terms. Strict adherence to notification requirements emphasized.

M/s R.R. Kobler Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi

M/s R.R. Kobler Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi - 2016 (333) E.L.T. 98 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:- Appeal against order-in-appeal dated 15.10.2009 upholding order-in-original dated 19.08.2009 charging duty on imported goods.- Compliance with conditions of Notification No. 158/1995-Cus. for reimported goods.- Interpretation of Condition No. II of Notification No. 158/1995-Cus.- Precedential value of judgments cited by the appellant.- Strict construction of exemption notifications.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal dated 15.10.2009, which confirmed the order-in-original dated 19.08.2009, directing the imposition of duty on goods imported via Bill of Entry No. 505835 dated 28.03.2008, along with applicable interest. The importer was instructed to pay the duty and interest within seven days, failing which the Bank Guarantee would be enforced.2. The case involved the reimportation of leather pouches by a 100% EOU under Notification No. 158/1995-Cus. The conditions for exemption under the notification included reimportation within three years from the date of exportation, re-exportation within a specified period, satisfaction of customs officials regarding goods' identity, and execution of a bond by the importer.3. The appellant argued that the goods were reimported within the stipulated timeframe and re-exported within one year of importation, albeit beyond six months. The appellant cited legal precedents to support the contention that a slight delay in re-export could be condoned by the Commissioner of Customs.4. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions and found that while the goods were re-imported within the required period, they were not re-exported within the specified six-month timeframe or any extended period approved by the Commissioner. As the appellant did not seek permission for an extended re-export period, the Tribunal held that the conditions of the exemption notification were not met.5. The Tribunal emphasized the need for strict compliance with exemption notification conditions, citing a Supreme Court judgment on construing exemption notifications strictly. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant's reliance on legal precedents, noting that concessions in judgments do not establish precedential value, and government decisions do not bind the Tribunal.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that as the appellant failed to satisfy one of the conditions of Notification No. 158/1995-Cus., the benefit of the exemption could not be granted. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.