Page 185 - ELT_3rd_1st May 2020_Vol 372_Part

2020 ] MASTERSTOKE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, JAIPUR-I 407

faction that the goods being re-imported are the same which have been exported
by Shipping Bill No. 6815 dated 28-10-2014 and they were part of consignment
which were previously exported and covered by the relevant packing list and
invoice.
4. The appellant has again exported 11 items after undertaking re-
quired repair, reconditioning vide Shipping Bill No. 10769 dated 28-2-2015
whereunder it has been declared by the appellant that ‘gold jewellery studded
with precious and semi-precious diamonds and details as per invoice number
MS-03 II dated 28-2-2015 (copy attached) (sic). Re-export under Bill of Entry No.
004465 dated 22-1-2015 after repair and resetting. The shipping bill has been as-
sessed by the concerned Superintendent as well as Deputy Commissioner of Cus-
toms, Diggy House, Jaipur on 28-2-2015. We find that the appellants have made a
true declaration of the repairs and resetting they have undertaken which resulted
into variation in the weight of gold by 3.69 gms and weight of diamond by 0.81
CTS. We find that the concerned officer after having satisfied themselves about
the identity of the items have allowed re-export of the imported items which
were re-imported vide Bill of entry No. 4465 dated 22-1-2015.
5. The appellants have not charged anything extra from the importer
for re-setting and repair of the goods have been exported after repairs and re-
conditioning at the same price and sent back to the same buyer. The assessing
officer of the export consignment have allowed the export after having satisfied
themselves with the identity of export items being same as was re-import under
Bill of Entry No. 4465 dated 22-1-2015. We find that there is no violation of Con-
dition No. 3 of S. No. 1 of the Notification No. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-95 as it
only requires the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner of Customs as regards
the identity of goods since the shipping bill for re-export of the imported items
have been assessed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is apparent that he is satis-
fied with the fact that the goods being re-exported are the same which have been
re-imported vide Bill of Entry No. 4465 dated 22-1-2015. In view of above facts,
we find that there is no violation of condition as alleged in the show cause notice
and confirmed by Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 14 Sep-
tember, 2018. We also find that if certain small repair or reconditioning of the
jewellery item is to be undertaken by manufacturer exporter, a minor variation in
the weight are bound to occur. Since in this case, the variation is only of 3.69 gms
in the weight which is very minor variation and otherwise also both the import
invoice and export invoice has the photograph of all the concerned 11 items of
jewellery and the officer after being satisfied with the identity of goods have al-
lowed the export of the same, we do not find any justification in confirming the
duty on the items imported which were actually have been exported by the ap-
pellant. In view of the entire above discussions, we are satisfied that the Order-
in-Appeal is devoid of merits. We set aside the same. Appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st May 2020  185