ORDER
T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 533/99, dated 10-9-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The appellants are a 100% EOU. They exported their goods. The foreign importer found some of the goods defective. Therefore, the goods were sent back to India for repairing. The goods had been imported on 1-8-1997 declaring the same as mill made cotton men’s jackets. At the time of re-import, they executed a bond with the Customs authorities for re-export of the goods within a period of six months or such extended period in terms of Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-95. Subsequently, they exported the goods vide two shipping bills dated 28-9-98 and 8-10-98. The original authority proceeded against the appellants on the ground that they had failed to produce satisfactory evidence of re-export of the goods that the same had been re-imported after executing a Bond on the condition that they would be after reworking/replacement re-exported within “six months of such extended period” not exceeding further period of six months in terms of Notification No. 158/95. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.2,83,186/-. The appellants approached the Commissioner (Appeals). After going through the records, the Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellants’ appeal. Hence the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief.
3. Smt. Prameela, ld. Counsel appeared for the appellants and Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, ld. SDK for the Revenue. Ld. Counsel urged the following points:
(i) The goods were re-imported under Notification No. 53/97, dated 3-6-97 under Sl. No. 14 of the table annexed to the Notification. This Notification does not stipulate any period before which the re-imported goods should be re-exported after re-conditioning.
(ii) The goods were re-imported under the aforesaid Notification. The impugned order refers to Notification No. 158/95. In view of the above, she requested the impugned order may be set aside.
4. Ld. SDR submitted the following points:
(a) It is a fact that the goods were re-exported under Notification No. 53/97 under Sl. No. 14 of the table annexed to the Notification. Section 20 of the Customs Act deals with goods re-imported. Notification No. 158/95 is issued under Section 20 of the Customs Act. Therefore, as regards re-export, the correct Notification applicable would be Notification No. 158/95. Even, the appellants have executed the Bond in terms of the above Notification. As per the Bond within a period of six months they should have exported. That period can be extended for a further period of not exceeding six months. There is no record to show that they had sought extension. Moreover, the identity of goods which are re-imported and re-exported has not been established as given in the findings of the lower authorities. What was re-imported was Cotton jackets and the re-exported product was Nylon Jackets. Another fact is that the reexport had taken place after one year from the date of re-import. In these circumstances, the order of the lower authority is legal and proper.
5. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. As regards the re-import of the goods under Notification No. 53/97, there is no dispute. At the time of re-import the appellants have executed a Bond in terms of Notification No. 158/95. We have gone through the Bond. In terms of the Bond, re-export should have been done within six months. Another factor is that re-import is for the purpose of re-working/replacement. In the instant case the lower authorities have found that what is re-imported is cotton fabrics and what is re-exported is Nylon fabrics. Ld. Counsel pointed out that while repairing the jackets some Nylon pieces were stitched and the identity of the goods is not at all lost. This point has not all been raised in the lower fora by the appellants. Hence, at this stage we cannot consider this plea of the appellants. The lower authorities have confirmed the demand mainly on the following two points:
(i) The re-export has not been done within the period of six months or such extended period. In fact they have not even sought for extension of time.
(ii) The identity of the goods re-imported with those re-exported has not been established.
6. Hence, in terms of Notification No. 158/95 the appellants are liable to pay duty demanded. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal has no merit and the same is rejected.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open Court)