- (1.) This Appeal is against the judgment of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 24th August, 2001.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are as follows : One M/s. SKF Bearing (I) Ltd. Bombay had exported under bonds, ball bearings, vide Shipping Bill Nos. 481120 dated 22nd August, 1994, 494274 dated 9th November, 1994, 503510 dated 9th December, 1994 and 506157 dated 19th December, 1994. These ball bearings were subsequently purchased by the appellants and re-imported in India vide two Bills of Entries dated 14th March, 1995. There appears to be no dispute that the goods which have been imported are the same which had been exported by SKF Bearing (I) Ltd. The appellants claimed benefit of the proviso to Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : "Section 29- Re-importation of goods :- If goods are imported into India after exportation therefrom, such goods shall be liable to duty and be subjected to all the conditions and restrictions, if any, to which goods of the like kind and value are liable or subject, on the importation thereof : Provided that if such importation (other than importation of goods exported in bond or of goods produced or manufactured in a free trade zone) takes place within three years after the exportation of such goods and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods are the same which were exported, the goods may be admitted- a) in any case where at the time of exportation of the goods, drawback of any customs or excise duty levied by the Union or both was allowed, on payment of customs duty equal to the amount of such drawback; b) in any case where at the time of exportation of the goods, drawback of any excise duty levied by a State was allowed, on payment of customs duty equal to such excise duty leviable at the time and place of importation of the goods; c) in any other case, without payment of duty : Provided further . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ." The Assistant Commissioner of Customs held that as the goods had been exported in bonds the appellants were liable to pay the custom duty at the same rate to which the goods of the like kind and value would be subject. CEGAT has upheld the decision and held that the appellants are not covered by the proviso to Section 20 inasmuch as the goods had been exported in bond.
(3.) Mr. Ganguli submitted that Section 20 appears in the Customs Act. He submitted that the Customs Act deals with matters pertaining to custom duty and therefore when the Section uses the words "goods exported in bond" it necessarily refers to goods which were exported under a customs bond. He submitted that goods exported under an excise bond would not be covered by the words "goods exported in bond" in Section 20. He submitted that on principle of interpretation the words "exported in bond" must be restricted to mean goods exported under a customs bond. Mr. Ganguli further submitted that the Proviso to Section 20 refers to excise duty. He submitted that wherever the Legislature wanted to refer to excise duty it specifically said so. He submitted that the Legislature has knowingly not used the words "goods exported in excise bond", as they wanted the Proviso to apply to goods exported under an excise bond.;