ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President
1. When the matter was called, none is present for the appellant, who have asked for adjournment. However, it is found that the impugned order is one of remand with direction to the adjudicating authority regarding the duty liability and therefore the matter is proceeded with. The appellants had imported gas cylinders and claimed clearance of empty cylinders at Nil rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 97/79-Cus. which stipulated the condition for re-export of empty gas cylinders to the foreign suppliers within six months from the date of importation. However, the empty gas cylinders were not so re-exported to the shippers even after 5 years from the import. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, issued show cause notice for the failure on the part of the appellants to re-export cylinders for which the appellants had also executed a bond backed by Bank Guarantee. The Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the matter by passing in the Order dated 13-6-1995 confirming the demand for Rs. 43,912/- Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the containers have been imported in 1991 and that as against the period of six months prescribed in the notification more than 7 years had already gone by. He also found the reason for not re-exporting during the period not convincing; he upheld the Assistant Commissioner’s order and directed that in the case of the containers which are already empty and ready for the export appellant should be allowed to reexport the same and duty demand may be confirmed on the rest of the containers which are still not ready for re-export.
2. Shri S.V. Singh, the ld. JDR has pointed out that for more than 6 years, the appellants have not discharged their obligation to re-export the cylinders although, the undertaking was for such re-export within six months. Hence, the impugned order and the direction therein are very reasonable. The appellants on the other hand have pleaded that there should not be any insistence on the return of the containers and have argued that no such insistence is there regarding other containers like cartons. They have pleaded due to the low rate of consumption, the return is delayed. However, it is found that the appellants had more than reasonable time of over 6 years as observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order for complying with the undertaking they had given at the time of import of the gas for which they have also executed bond with bank guarantee. The appellants have opted to avail of the exemption from duty on cylinders in terms of the notification and it is their obligation to have complied with and fulfil those conditions. Admittedly they have not complied with in respect of cylinders and in such circumstances the terms on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has disposed of the appeal directing the payment of duty only in respect of those cylinders which are still not empty is very reasonable and calls for no interference. The appeal is rejected.