2018 (1) TMI 571

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant Sh. P. Juneja, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandra The appeal is against order dated 07.08.2017 of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The appellant exported certain automobiles components in the year 2014. These goods were found defective and were sent back by the importer to the appellant. These goods were reimported by the appellant who filed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9,340/- by denying the exemption under Notification No.158/95 dated 14.11.95. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the goods which were re-imported by the appellant have been duly re-exported under the cover of five shipping bills. These shipping bills refer to the bill of entry under which these goods were re-imported into India. The only objection of the Revenue is that gods under ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arious decided cases. 3. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue submitted that while facts are admitted, the condition of the notification for re-export within six months of the import has to be strictly applied. The extension of six months is available to the appellant and the same can be given only on due requests and verification by the jurisdictional Commissioner. In the present case, the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion under Notification No.158/95. The appellant are put to a duty of Rs. 17,19,340/- only on the ground that the re-export did not happen within six months. The custom duty is levied on goods imported into India for home consumption. Admittedly, the goods are not in India and they were duly allowed for export. In such situation, the demand of customs duty only on the ground that the appellant did....