Page 184 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

406 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

163 Articles (207 pieces) valued at US $ 5,88,315 were exported vide Shipping Bill
No. 6815, dated 28-10-2014. As per the appellant, the buyer of Diamonds studded
jewellery made complaint against 11 Articles (out of total 207 pieces) as not being
up to the standard. These 11 articles were re-imported by the appellant under
Notification No. 158/1995 and a bond was executed indicating that after neces-
sary repairs and reconditioning, these 11 articles are also going to be re-exported.
The Bill of Entry No. 4465, dated 22-1-2015 were filed by the appellant before the
Customs Authorities wherein it has been declared that the goods under import
are the one which have been exported by him vide Shipping Bill No. 6815, dated
28-10-2014 and same are to be re-exported after undertaking necessary repairs
and reconditioning. A show cause notice dated 25-8-2015 for Bill of Entry No.
4465 dated 22-1-2015 was issued to the appellant saying that it has been noticed
that the goods having net weight of 53.28 gms including 3.30 CTS weight of Di-
amonds were re-imported vide Bill of Entry No. 4465 dated 22-1-2015 but after
repair net weight of goods weighing 56.970 gms including Diamonds weight 2.49
CTS only were exported by the appellant vide Shipping Bill No. 10769 dated 28-
2-2015. It has been alleged in the show cause notice that on the basis of difference
in the weight of the re-exported items, the Deputy Commissioner of the Air Car-
go Complex has alleged that re-imported items as per the Bill of Entry No. 4465
dated 22-1-2015 has not been exported as claimed by the appellant and, therefore,
Customs duty of Rs. 2,08,090/- has been demanded under Section 28(1) of the
Customs Act, 1962 read with condition No. 4 of S. No. 1 of Notification No.
158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995 as amended, the other provisions pertaining to
interest and penalty have also been invoked as provided under Section 28AA
and Section 112 a(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively. The show cause no-
tice have been adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner vide his Order-in-Original
No. 28/2015-16, dated 28-11-2015 wherein all the charges as leveled in the show
cause notice has been confirmed except the dropping the demand of the Customs
duty amounting to Rs. 33,081/-. The appellant have approached Commissioner
(Appeals) against the above mentioned Order-in-Original and the Learned
Commissioner (Appeals) vide its Order-in-Appeal No. 264(SM)CUS/JPR/2018,
dated 14-9-2018 has set aside the confiscation of imported items and also have set
aside the imposition of fine and penalty on the appellant. However, he has con-
firmed the Customs duty amounting to Rs. 1,75,009/- saying that the appellant
has failed to fulfill the Condition No. 3 of the Serial No. 1 of the Notification No.
158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995.
2. The appellants are before us against the above mentioned Order-in-
Appeal wherein the Customs duty of Rs. 1,75,009/- had been demanded from
the appellant for having failed to fulfill the Condition No. 3 of Sl. No. 1 of Notifi-
cation No. 158/1995-Cus., dated 14-11-1995.
3. Having heard both the sides and on perusal of the appeal, we find
that at the time of re-import of the 11 items, which have been exported by the
appellant vide Shipping Bill No. 6815 dated 28-10-2014, the appellants have
clearly mentioned that they are re-importing goods which were previously ex-
ported in the details it has been provided that the re-import items are weighing
53.280 gms of 11 Articles of jewellery which were meant for re-export and every
item has a specific mention of its S. No. in previous export shipping bill and in-
voices. The Bill of Entry has been assessed by the concerned officer on the satis-
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  184