The Bangalore Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) granted the benefit of re-importation under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. for 6000 kg of “Coarse Ground Chilli” that had been rejected by the foreign buyer. It ruled that the goods could be reprocessed and re-exported under the notification’s provisions.
AVT McCormick Ingredients Pvt. Ltd.,appellant-assessee,had filed Bill of Entry No. 8862322 on 21.11.2023 to re-import 6000 kg of “Coarse Ground Chilli,” originally exported under Shipping Bill No. 5144263 on 31.10.2022. The foreign buyer had rejected 6000 kg due to granulation issues.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
The assessee informed the department and planned to reprocess and re-export the goods under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. However, the Assistant Commissioner denied the notification benefits, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision. The assessee then appealed to the tribunal.
The assessee’s counsel argued that under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. dated 31.03.2003, goods could be re-imported for repair or reconditioning, regardless of rejection by the foreign buyer. He underscored that the notification did not limit the types of goods eligible for re-import.
The assessee had clarified the intent to reprocess and re-export the goods. A recent lab report confirmed the goods were fit for human consumption, and the assessee requested clearance under the notification.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
The Revenue’s Authorized Representative(AR) supported the Commissioner (Appeals)’s decision, stating that the 6000 kg rejected by the overseas buyer fell under Sr. No. 15 of Annexure-I of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. Since the goods were re-imported after one year, the authorities correctly denied the notification’s benefit.
The two member bench comprising D.M.Misra (Judicial Member) and R.Bhagya Devi(Technical Member)examined the appeal and the records. The main issue was whether the assessee was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. for the re-imported 6000 kg of “Coarse Ground Chilli.” The assessee had exported 25,000 kg, of which 6000 kg were rejected by the foreign buyer. The goods were re-imported for repair and re-export, with the assessee claiming the benefit under Sr. No. 14 of the notification.
The appellate tribunal observed that Sr. No. 14 allowed re-importation for repair or reconditioning within three years, while Sr. No. 15 applied to goods rejected by the buyer within one year.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
The bench determined that the assessee’s case fell under Sr. No. 14, making the benefit of the notification applicable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
