Lahari Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Conclusion: Where the goods re-imported for repair/reconditioning of the goods, when again re-exported beyond the prescribed period of one year including the extension of six months permitted in the Notification, assessee/ importer definitely became liable to pay the custom duty in question in view of the admitted delay beyond the period of 12 months, for the re-export of the same goods.
Held: The issue for consideration was that whether the goods re-imported for repair/reconditioning of the goods, when again re-exported beyond the prescribed period of one year including the extension of six months permitted in the Notification, whether the Importer/ Assessee was liable to pay duty denying the concession/ exemption of the Notification No.158/95/Cus or not? It was held that the re-import of the goods which had taken place to repair/recondition the goods in question were re-exported beyond the prescribed period of one year including the period of six months of extended period and therefore, assessee had admitted the breach of the condition of exemption from custody duty under the said Notification No.158/95/Cus. Merely because assessee could claim the duty drawback later on, and it may give rise to a revenue neutral situation, it could not be said that the period of one year prescribed in the said Notification was without any meaning. Whether assessee / importer would actually get such duty drawback or not, was a question which was yet to be determined by the concerned Adjudicating Authority when such a claim of duty drawback was made by assessee. Therefore, that issue could not be prejudged either by the Tribunal or by this Court. On the admitted breach of the Notification No.158/95/Cus, Assessee/ Importer definitely became liable to pay the custom duty in question, denying the exemption under the said Notification in view of the admitted delay beyond the period of 12 months, for the re-export of the same goods. CESTAT therefore was justified in denying the said exemption to assessee and also rejecting the rectification application filed by assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
The learned counsel for the Appellant / Assessee Mr.Hari Radhakrishnan, has submitted that after the earlier appeal in C.M.A.No.468 of 2018 was withdrawn from this Court on 19 December 2019, with a liberty to file a Review Petition before the learned CESTAT, even the Review Petition has been dismissed by the learned CESTAT vide order dated 5 February 2020 and therefore, again the present appeals have been filed by the Assessee.
2. The controversy in brief is with regard to the Notification No.158/95/Cus on the question that whether the goods re-imported for repair/reconditioning of the goods, when again re-exported beyond the prescribed period of one year including the extension of six months permitted in the Notification, whether the Importer/ Assessee is liable to pay duty denying the concession/ exemption of the said Notification No.158/95/Cus or not?
3. The Tribunal in its original order dated 31 August 2017, had decided the said issue against the Assessee with the following observations :-
9. The core issues that arise for decision in all these appeals can be capsule as follows:
(i) Whether differential duty can be levied on goods re-imported with full duty exemption under Notification No.158/95/Cus. when the repaired/ reconditioned goods have been exported only after expiry of the period prescribed in that Notification?
(ii) Whether the demands made on this score in these appeals can be set aside even on the grounds of revenue-neutrality?
(iii) Alternatively, in such cases, whether the appellants can claim the benefit of another Notification No. 94/96-Cus or otherwise?
10. To understand the contentious issues in perspective, the relevant portions of the Notification No.158/95/Cus. are reproduced as below:
TABLE
Comments are closed.