SUMITOMO ELECTRIC HARDMETAL Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had exported cutting tools under shipping bill No. 7823314 dated 3.7.2000. These goods were reimported under bill of entry No. 228291 dated 17.11.2000 containing 200 pieces of super hard material tools, claiming benefit of notification No. 158/95 -Cus. dated 14.11.95. The goods were examined at the port with the shipping bill No. 7823314 dated 3.7.2000 and found to be identified with it. At the time of re -import, the bond to comply with the conditions of the notification No. 158/95 -Cus. was also executed. According to condition No. 2 of the said notification, the appellants were required to re -export the goods within six months from the date of re -importation or such extended period not exceeding a further period of six months as the Commissioner of customs may allow. The goods were finally re -exported on 4.12.2001 after expiry of six months. Demand notice was issued to the appellants demanding duty of Rs. 1,49,717/ -. The duty was confirmed by the original authority and the order of the original authority was upheld by the Commissioner (appeals).

(2.) THE main pleading before me is that they have applied for extension of period of six mouths on 2/8.2001 for further period of six months. However, their application was rejected on the ground that they have applied after the expiry of six months from the date of import (filing of IGM) and thereafter demand notice was issued which was confirmed. It is pleaded that the goods were cleared by them from the custom on 19.11.2000 and as per Board's circular No. 14/97 dated 3.6.1997 issued from F. No. 435/3/95 -Cus.IV, CBEC has clarified that for the purpose of notification No. 158/95 -Cus. dated 14.11.95 the time limit of six months as stipulated in the said notification for the purpose of re -export is to be calculated from the date of actual clearance of the goods and not from the filing of bill of entry. Since they have cleared the goods on 19.11.2000, the period of six months had not expired on 8.5.2001 when they made an application for extension. Therefore, rejection of extension is not based on law. It was also pointed out that when they have applied to re -export the goods within the prescribed time, then duty should have been charged under notification No. 94/96 -Cus. dated 16.12.1996. Finally, it was pleaded that if they had re -exported the goods alter expiry of one year, since the goods have been re -exported, they should be given drawback under Section 74 of the Customs Act.

(3.) ON behalf of the Revenue, it was pleaded that once the appellants have re -imported the goods under notification No. 158/95, they cannot claim assessment now under notification No. 94/96 as the benefit of notification is to be taken at the time of import at the time of assessment of bill of entry. In this case, the appellant had claimed benefit of notification No. 158/95 for assessment at Nil rate of duty and executed bond for fulfillment of export obligations. Therefore, they cannot switch over to another notification now. Under notification No. 158/95, the benefit of extension is permitted only for six months from the expiry of period of initial six months. The appellants have exported the goods after expiry of one year from the date of clearance of goods from the custom. Therefore, even if the extension would have been there, they would not have fulfilled the condition of notification NO. 158/95. Therefore, the demand has been correctly confirmed by the lower authorities.