By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, JULY 27, 2016: THE appellants filed various Bills of Entry for import of Fuel Injection Pumps (FIPs) and claimed exemption in terms of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. available to re-imported goods. The concession was denied by the original authority by holding that the FIPs were originally exported, whereas the imported items are diesel engines, though fitted with FIPS. It was concluded that the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. cannot be extended to the appellant as the goods under import were engine assemblies and not FIPs which were earlier exported. The denial of concession was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant is before the Tribunal.

The appellant contended that the FIPs exported were actually re-imported except to the effect that at the time of re-import they are fitted in the engines. They contended that the FIPs remained the same. As per the Explanation appended to the notification, the goods shall not be deemed to be the same if these are re-imported after being subjected to re-manufacturing or re-processing through melting, re-cycilng or re-casting abroad. It is a case that FIPs did not undergo any of these processes. The FIPs exported were re-imported though after fitment into engines. Hence the exemption on re-import as available in terms of the above notification is rightly eligible to the appellants.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

+ The same issue came for decision before the Tribunal in the case of Ford India Private Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai - 2008-TIOL-1478-CESTAT-MAD , wherein it was held that the benefit of exemption has rightly been denied on the ground of non-fulfilment of substantive conditions stipulated under the first proviso to the Notification.

+ The matter came to be clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 1/2005 dated 11.1.2005 to the effect that FIPs and injectors exported and re-imported after fitment into engines were not covered by Notification 94/96-Cus. The appellant argued that the said clarification should be applicable only prospectively. The existence of circular was taken note of in the above decision of Tribunal. However, the finding was made independent of the said clarification. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.

(See 2016-TIOL-1864-CESTAT-MAD)