The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has set aside a customs duty demand of ₹45.82 crore, along with redemption fine and penalties, holding that re-imported goods are entitled to customs duty exemption where the exporter has repaid the duty drawback benefits and complied with the conditions governing re-importation.
The bench of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) has observed that the entire cycle—from original export, re-import, processing and subsequent re-export—was documented and verified by customs and central excise officers. Consequently, the required nexus between exported and re-imported goods stood established.
The case concerned exports of frozen buffalo meat undertaken by the exporter under various shipping bills. The company had claimed duty drawback under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 at the time of export. Subsequently, a small portion of the exported consignments was returned to India by overseas buyers.
According to the exporter, the re-imports were necessitated by commercial factors such as packing issues, shortage of funds with overseas buyers, price renegotiations, foreign exchange fluctuations and similar business reasons. At the time of re-import, the company sought exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus., which grants customs duty relief for goods re-imported for reprocessing and subsequent re-export.
The Customs Department disputed the claim and issued a show cause notice in December 2022 alleging that the goods were allegedly rejected due to microbial contamination rather than commercial reasons; there were identity mismatches between exported and re-imported goods; Separate inventory records had not been maintained; Re-imported goods had been mixed with general stock; The company had failed to establish proper correlation between exported and re-imported consignments; and Alternative exemption benefits under Notifications 94/96-Cus. and 45/2017-Cus. were not available.
Based on these allegations, the Principal Commissioner of Customs denied the exemption, confirmed a differential customs duty demand of ₹45.82 crore, imposed a redemption fine of ₹6 crore and levied penalties on the company and other noticees.
Before the Tribunal, the exporter argued that the re-imported goods constituted only around 0.22% of its total exports and that the entire production was meant for export with no domestic sales. The company emphasized that it had repaid the entire duty drawback amount along with interest at the time of re-import; Filed all re-import documents with customs authorities; Transported the goods under customs supervision and sealed containers; Undertaken thawing, repacking and relabelling operations under departmental oversight; Re-exported the goods after processing; and Obtained discharge and cancellation of the bonds executed at the time of re-import.
The exporter further contended that even independently of Notification 158/95-Cus., it satisfied the conditions of Notification 94/96-Cus. and the later Notifications 45/2017-Cus. and 46/2017-Cus., since the drawback benefits had already been repaid to the Government.
The Tribunal framed three principal issues:
- Whether simultaneous or alternative exemption benefits under re-import notifications could be availed.
- Whether the re-imported frozen buffalo meat qualified for exemption under Notification 158/95-Cus. or Notification 94/96-Cus.
- Whether the customs duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were legally sustainable.
After examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the company had furnished details of the original shipping bills, repaid the drawback benefits with interest and followed the prescribed bond and supervision procedures.
The Bench noted that customs authorities themselves had permitted movement of the goods under bond, supervised the sealing and transportation process, and later cancelled the bonds after being satisfied regarding compliance with the notification conditions.
A significant aspect of the ruling was the Tribunal’s finding that once the bonds executed by the importer had been cancelled after verification by the Department, Customs could not subsequently allege violation of bond conditions and raise fresh demands.
Relying on earlier precedent, the Bench held that cancellation of the bonds demonstrated departmental satisfaction regarding compliance with the notification requirements.
The Tribunal further held that the company had fulfilled the requirements of Notification 94/96-Cus. because the drawback benefits claimed at the time of export had been repaid with interest upon re-importation.
Importantly, the Bench observed that even if the importer had initially claimed a different exemption notification, it could still rely upon an alternative notification at a later stage if the substantive conditions were satisfied. For this proposition, the Tribunal relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Share Medical Care v. Union of India.
Rejecting the Department’s allegations regarding non-compliance, the Tribunal concluded that the documentary evidence clearly established the linkage between the goods originally exported and those subsequently re-imported and re-exported after processing.
Holding that the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. had been duly fulfilled and that the drawback had also been repaid in accordance with Notification No. 94/96-Cus., the Bench ruled that the customs duty exemption was available to the appellants.
Accordingly, CESTAT set aside the entire differential customs duty demand of ₹45.82 crore, the redemption fine of ₹6 crore and all associated penalties, allowing the appeals in favour of the appellants.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
Read More: CESTAT Upholds Customs Duty Demand on Mobile Phone Camera Modules
