RATAN MICA EXPORTS PVT LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
T.P.Nambiar, Member (J) -
(1.) THE instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order passed by the Collector of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals) in order No. Cal. Cus-2133/89 dt. 6-12-1989. In terms of that order he confirmed the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector in order No. S-10(A/R)-7/88 E dt. 19-7-1989, wherein he rejected the claim of the appellants for refund. THE brief facts of the case are that, the appellants exported a quantum of 55 M/T of crushed mica scrap to Poland under S/Bill No. E-86 dt. 12-12-1986 per vessel M.V. Lemino on payment of export duty of Rs. 79819.47. But it so happened that a quantum of 30.625 M/T of this consignment was not approved by the foreign buyer, and the same were returned to India. It reached India finder the bill of entry No. 1-66 dt. 9-2-1988. On receipt of the rejected quantum the appellants shipped to the foreign buyer another quantum of 30.625 M/T of crushed mica scrap as replacement on payment of export duty of Rs. 44,444.93 under S/Bill No. E-105 dt. 19-2-1988.
(2.) In the meanwhile the appellants having understood that a part of the consignment was rejected, made a provisional claim on 30-6-1987.
Sri K. Raja Ram, Manager of the appellants company appeared for the appellants and Sri B.B. Sarkar, learned JDR, appeared for the respondent. Sri Raja Ram contended that the export date was 12-12-1986. He no doubt admitted that the goods arrived in India on 9-2-1988. But he stated that the goods were re-shipped from Poland on 24-11-1987, and this was made known to them through letter of the foreign buyer dated 28-5-1987. Sri Raja Ram contended that Section 26(b) of the Customs Act states that the goods if re-imported within one year from the date of exportation, the refund can be claimed. Therefore, he contended that in view of this correspondence dated 28-5-1987 it is clear that the goods were re-shipped on 24-11-1987, and that this date should be taken while computing the period of one year. Therefore, he contended that the export having been made on 12-12-1986 and when the re-shipment was made from Poland on 24-11-1987, the same is within the period of one year as contemplated under Section 26(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
(3.) SRI B.B. Sarkar, learned JDR, on the other hand, contended that Section 26(b) clearly states that on exportation of any goods if any duty has been paid such duty shall be refunded to the person by whom it was paid if the goods are re-shipped within one year from the date of exportation. In this connection SRI Sarkar contended that the words re-imported go to show that the goods should reach India and this date is 9-2-1988, which is beyond the period of one year, as prescribed under Section 26(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was the contention of SRI Sarkar that the date of shipment by the foreign buyer i.e. 24-11-1987 is not relevant for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 26(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.