COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. PANSARI GEMS INTERNATIONAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides and perused records. The appeal is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. 51 (SN) CUS/JPR -1/2003, dated 1 -7 -03 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur -I. The issue before the Commissioner was whether a consignment of imported Gems was eligible for duty free clearance as re -imported goods under Section 20 of the Customs Act read with Notification No. 94/96 -Customs dated 16 -12 -1996. The Commissioner passed the following order : "3. I have gone through the case records and submissions made by the appellant. It is a case of reimport of one packet of cut and polished Aquamarine stones earlier exported vide export invoice dated 27 -9 -2002 under Shipping Bill dated 27 -9 -2002. The appellant have claimed re -import of the same under Section 20 of the Customs Act read with notification No. 94/96 -Cus, dated 16 -12 -1996 of allowing duty free re -import which has not been allowed by the impugned order as the identity of the goods could not be allegedly established. I find that the declaration made in the Export invoice and re -import invoice about the description of stones (cut aquamarine) their number (5223 pcs.) their weight (806.15 carats) and their value (5000.00 Euro), tally completely. Further I find that the adjudicating authority has not allowed re -import on the grounds that re -imported parcel has not come in the same packaging bearing Customs seal of ACC, Jaipur in which it was Exported. The Translation of the invoice accompanying the goods reads as: (i) "Goods are not in confirmation (acceptable) -Return" (ii) "All import value according to bill of import No. 4/681D, dated 7 -10" (iii) "This operation is not restricted under Act 8." Further Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 or the Notification issued thereunder does not impose any such condition."

(2.) It would be seen from the above order that Commissioner overruled the objections sustained in the adjudication order. The objections were two fold viz. (i) that the goods had not been re -imported in the same packing in which they were exported and (ii) that the individual particulars of each stock had not been given in the invoice. The present appeal also is based on the same ground. I am fully in agreement that these objections have no validity. It is not a requirement for re -import of goods that the goods should be received back in the same packing. In fact, such a requirement would artificially restrict the scope of that Section. The foreign buyers in such a case, would not be in a position to open the packages in which goods are received and inspect them and decide whether to accept the goods or not. Such artificial restriction is not contemplated in law. The export invoice of the Indian supplier did not give the individual details of each stones. In such a case, furnishing of details in the re -import invoice would not help in identification of the goods. Viewed from any angle, both the objections were invalid and the Commissioner was right in over -ruling them. The present appeal is entirely misconceived and vexatious. Revenue should not continue with the proceedings endlessly in this manner. Appeal has no merits. It is rejected.