TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 866
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reinafter referred to as the Respondent) vide five Bills of Entry without payment of duty holding that the said goods were meant for destruction and therefore, not liable to duty. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had exported certain consignments to Kenya Medical Supply Agency (KEMSA), however, the said consignments were not accepted by KEMSA on the grounds that the said drugs were delisted by USFDA and hence were no longer eligible for procurement using USAID Funds. At the time of re-import, DGHS, CDSCO, New Delhi, informed that as the subject re-imported goods were having less than 60% shelf life, no part of the consignment shall be used for domestic purpose in any circumstances and should be destroyed. Subsequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... section 20 of the Customs Act are quite clear and there is a requirement to discharge customs duty as applicable at the time of re-import. The department has also submitted that the adjudicating authority has not appreciated the legal provisions as well as relied on exemption Notification No.52/2003 and the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) provisions, which are applicable in the facts of the case. They have submitted that the Board Circular No.60/1999 dt.10.09.1999 is specific in the context of 'goods exported and found defective, damaged or otherwise unfit for use by foreign buyer', which is not at all the case with respect to impugned re-imported goods. Further, that the said circular also does not provide that the duty shall not be levied at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the FTP stating that the goods can be destroyed without payment of duty, unless provisions exist under the Customs Act and Notification issued thereunder, remission/abatement of duty cannot be permitted. The Assistant Commissioner in his communication dated 15-10-2009 has clearly stated that though para 6.15(b) of the FTP provides for destruction without payment of duty, the Notification No. 52/2003 does not provide for destruction of re-imported goods without payment of duty and that is the reason why he directed the appellant to pay the duty. Notification No. 52/03 does not provide for non-payment of duty in case the imported goods are destroyed without putting to use the said goods in the manufacture and export of finished goods. As per ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he adjudicating authority has rightly held that no duty is leviable on said re-imported goods meant for destruction. He has also relied on the judgment relied upon by the adjudicating authority in support that no duty was leviable. 7. Heard both sides and perused the records. 8. We find that the short question to be decided in this appeal is whether the said drugs could have been re-imported without payment of applicable customs duty or otherwise. Admittedly, the drugs were re-imported after its refusal by the KEMSA, however, at the time of re-import, the CDSCO/ Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) was informed by the appellant that the goods had less than 60% shelf life and consequently the said organization observed that the re-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itions and restrictions, if any, to which goods of like kind and value are liable on subject of importation thereof. In other words, the re-importation also attracts duty as also various conditions and restrictions applicable on goods of like kind and value. There is no exemption notification specifically exempting goods from levy of customs duty at the time of re-importation, which is essentially being treated at par with normal import. The reliance placed by the adjudicating authority on para 6.15(b) of FTP and Notification No.52/2003-Cus, supra, relates to sale of unutilized material in the case of EOU/EHTP/STP/BTP etc., wherein, inter alia, there is a provision for non-payment of duty on scrap/waste/remnants/rejects as well as manufactu....