2005 (12) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for the Respondent. [Order]. - The appellants had exported cutting tools under Shipping Bill No. 7823314, dated 3-7-2000. These goods were re-imported under Bill of Entry No. 228291, dated 17-11-2000 containing 200 pieces of super hard material tools, claiming benefit of notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-95. The goods were examined at the port with the Shipping Bill No. 7823314, dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f period of six months on 2/8-5-2001 for further period of six months. However, their application was rejected on the ground that they have applied after the expiry of six months from the date of import (filing of IGM) and thereafter demand notice was issued which was confirmed. It is pleaded that the goods were cleared by them from the custom on 19-11-2000 and as per Board's Circular No. 14/97, d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s after expiry of one year, since the goods have been re-exported, they should be given drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act. 3. On behalf of the Revenue, it was pleaded that once the appellants have re-imported the goods under Notification No. 158/95, they cannot claim assessment now under Notification No. 94/96 as the benefit of notification is to be taken at the time of import a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....I find that the date of clearance of goods after re-importation should be taken as the date on which these goods were cleared from the custom authority i.e. 19-11-2000. Since the appellant has executed the bond for re-export of these goods under notification No. 158/95 and they failed to re-export the goods irrespective of denial of extension to them within one year, therefore, as per condition of....