2026 (2) TMI 42 - AT - Customs

Claim to alternate exemption under Notification 94/1996 for reimported goods upheld as permissible; remand for de novo adjudication follows.

Appellant entitled to claim alternate exemption under Notification 94/1996 notwithstanding an initial claim under Notification 158/1995 at reimportation; ... Claim to alternate exemption Notification No.94/1996-Cus. - Entitlement to exemption notwithstanding initial claim under Notification No.158/1995-Cus. - reassessment u/s 149 - remand for de novo adjudication - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant initially had reimported the defective BCMs from their overseas associated company M/s. Bosch Corporation, Japan vide Bill of Entry No.9188259 dated 05.04.2017 claiming benefit of Notification No.158/95-Cus. dated 14.11.1995. The goods could not be re-exported after necessary reworking on the same within the period stipulated under the said Notification but was imported on 22.06.2015. Later, they claimed benefit of alternate Notification No.94/1996-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 as they fulfilled the conditions of the said notification. We find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the case to the adjudicating authority observing that the appellant has a very strong case on merit; however in the impugned order, he has held otherwise. We find that the issue has been considered by this Tribunal involving more or less similar circumstances in the case of SSK Export Ltd. Vs. CC, Cochin [2024 (11) TMI 745 - CESTAT BANGALORE]. This Tribunal observed that benefit of alternate Notification No.94/1996-Cus can be claimed even though at the initial stage it was not claimed but they have claimed benefit of Notification No.158/1995-Cus., while reimporting the goods earlier exported. Thus, we are of the opinion that the appellant are entitled to claim the benefit of the alternate Notification No.94/1996-Cus dated 16.12.1996 even though not claimed at the time of reimport. On the admissibility of the benefit of said Notification No.94/1996-Cus. dated 16.12.1996, it is subject to fulfilment of the condition mentioned in the said Notification. In the absence of any finding whether the appellant has fulfilled the condition of the said Notification, it is prudent to remand the case to the adjudicating authority. Needless to mention, principles of natural justice be followed and as far as practicable, the de novo proceeding be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of alternate Notification No.94/1996-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 on reimport of goods where benefit under Notification No.158/1995-Cus. was originally claimed and the alternate notification was not claimed at the time of reimport.Analysis: Relevant legal framework includes Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 allowing reassessment and the terms of Notification No.158/1995-Cus. dated 14.11.1995 and Notification No.94/1996-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 governing exemption on reimport/re-export. Prior decisions establish that a claim under an alternate exemption notification may be entertained later even if not originally claimed at the time of reimport, subject to satisfaction of the conditions of that notification and available documentary evidence; precedents cited include the Tribunal and Supreme Court authorities recognising reassessment and entitlement where conditions are fulfilled. The record in this matter shows that the reimport was initially cleared under Notification No.158/1995-Cus., the alternate Notification No.94/1996-Cus. was in force at relevant times, and there is no adjudicated finding on whether the appellant fulfilled the conditions of Notification No.94/1996-Cus.; accordingly further factual and legal determination on fulfilment of conditions is necessary.Conclusion: The appellant is entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No.94/1996-Cus. dated 16.12.1996 subject to fulfillment of its conditions; the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication following principles of natural justice and to determine whether the conditions of the notification are met.