TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 721
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 13.6.2013 from ONGC for exploration of Oil & Gas. The Appellant imported the Rig vide Bill of Entry No. 4083823 dated 16.12.2013 at Pipavav Port and Spare Parts were also imported under 10 bills of entry filed by them. The Appellant while importing and clearance of the said goods claimed exemption under Sl. No. 356 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.3.2012 under which the goods imported in connection with Petroleum Operations undertaken in pursuance of licence granted by the Govt of India or any State Government to the ONGC Ltd are exempted subject to certain conditions one of which is procurement of "Essentiality Certificate". However, before the initiation of the contract work, the ONGC Ltd terminated the contract vide e-mail dated 7.5.2014 and therefore, the imported goods could not be put to use by the appellant. On the intelligence that the imported goods were never put to use by the Appellant, the same were placed under seizure by the Department. After issuing show cause notice for seizure and confiscation of the same, vide OIO dated 23.11.2016 duty demand on the Rig and Spare parts was confirmed as well as confiscation of the said goods were ordered. The adjudicating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce between the duty payable and drawback amount under Section 74 of the Customs Act. It is also clear that he is eligible for 98% duty drawback of the duty paid by them. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Cipla Ltd - 1995 (80) ELT 17 (Bom) has allowed the assessee to re-export the goods on payment of differential duty of 2% after adjusting the drawback of 98% of duty admissible to them in terms of Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon'ble court held as under:- "Para 4. We find considerable merit in the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. In the present case, petitioners were allowed to re-export the goods by the Customs on the footing that they were the same goods, which were imported. The petitioners also obtained permission to re-export from R.B.I. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) (vide) order dated April 10, 1986 came to the conclusion that identity of goods stood established. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) also came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the petitioners to obtain end use certificate and that there was only technical fault on the part of the petitioners who re-exported the goods under free shipping bills whereas petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eft the issue for appropriate decision by this Tribunal. We find that under Section 74(2) read with Notification No. 19/65-Cus., dated 16-2-1965 as amended, if the imported goods are re-exported as such within a period of 3 months from the date of importation, 95% of the import duty paid is eligible as drawback to the exporter. In the present case, there is no dispute that the vessels have been re-exported within a period of 3 months from their date of importation. In the case of Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. v. CC, Mumbai [2001 (135) E.L.T. 625], in a similar situation, this Tribunal directed the Revenue to re-compute the duty liability after taking into the drawback. Following the said decision, in the present appeals also, we direct the Revenue to work out the duty liability after taking into account the drawback that the appellants would be entitled to, after completing the necessary formalities, if any required." We also find that in case of Joseph Eye Hospital - 2006 (193) ELT 91, the request for re-export without payment of duty was allowed by the Tribunal by holding as under: "Para 3. After examining the records and submissions, we find that it is not in dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1-2004, the said party had filed a Bill of Entry under DEPB scheme for clearance of goods declared as 'rubber slippers and cotton towels'. Inspection of the goods by the Customs authorities revealed that the consignment also contained undeclared items such as men's woven shirts and other garments concealed behind the packages of rubber slippers and cotton towels. After the mis-declaration was noticed, certain correspondences between the importer and the foreign supplier were produced by the CHA to show that the shipment of the undeclared items was occasioned by inadvertent mix-up of containers. The importer then chose to abandon the garments found in the containers. The show-cause notice issued by the Department to the party for confiscation, penalty etc., was adjudicated upon by the Commissioner, who ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 with option for redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the party requested for re-export of the goods. The Tribunal, following its earlier order in M.V. Marketing (Supra), allowed re-exp....