CUSTOMS, EXCI SE AND SERVI CE TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL REGI ONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD Division Bench – Court No. – I Customs Appeal No. 30399 of 2019 (Arising out of Speaking Order No. HYD-CUS-07-COM-18-19 dt.02.11.2018 passed by Principal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad)

Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - Customs ......Appellant Kendriya Shulk Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad – 500 004 VERSUS M/ s Hetero Labs Limited Corporate Office at 7-2-A2, Industrial Estate, ……Respondent Sanathnagar, Hyderabad – 500 018 Appearance Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, AR (Special Counsel) for the Appellant.

Shri Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent.

Coram: HON'BLE MR. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON'BLE MR. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FI NAL ORDER No. A/ 30028/ 2026 Date of Hearing: 14.08.2025 Date of Decision: 16.01.2026 [Order per: A.K. JYOTI SHI ]

The Appellant/Department has come in appeal against the Order dt.02.11.2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, whereby, he has allowed re-importation of goods by M/s Hetero Labs Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent) vide five Bills of Entry without payment of duty holding that the said goods were meant for destruction and therefore, not liable to duty.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had exported certain consignments to Kenya Medical Supply Agency (KEMSA), however, the said consignments were not accepted by KEMSA on the grounds that the said drugs were delisted by USFDA and hence were no longer eligible for procurement using USAID Funds. At the time of re-import, DGHS, CDSCO, New Delhi, informed that as the subject re-imported goods were having less than 60% shelf life, no part of the consignment shall be used for domestic purpose in any circumstances and should be destroyed. Subsequently, the importer requested the Customs authority that as the drugs have no commercial value and hence sought amendment of Bills of Entry filed so that the goods can be allowed for clearance without payment of duty and also sought permission to destroy the said goods in their factory premises in the presence of Customs officers.

3. The adjudicating authority examined the request in the light of various provisions, including section 20 of the Customs Act, which regulates re- importation of goods, Notification No.52/2003-Cus dt.31.03.2003 and Circular No.60/1999-Cus dt.10.09.1999 and, inter alia, held that the goods meant for destruction have no commercial value and, as such, no duty is payable. He has also relied on certain case laws in support including the order of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kar Mobiles Ltd Vs CC, Bangalore [2006 (206) ELT 198 (Tri-Bang)], which was further upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court as reported in [2007 (207) ELT A97 (SC)]. 4. The department has come in appeal primarily on the legality of conclusion drawn by the adjudicating authority that the said re-imported goods, which were for destruction, are not subjected to Customs duty on re- importation in terms of Notification No.52/2003-Cus dt.31.03.2003 and also that the delay of more than one year for re-import is only technical in nature and can be condoned in terms of case laws cited by the adjudicating authority. The appellant/department has mainly contended that provisions of section 20 of the Customs Act are quite clear and there is a requirement to discharge customs duty as applicable at the time of re-import. The department has also submitted that the adjudicating authority has not appreciated the legal provisions as well as relied on exemption Notification No.52/2003 and the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) provisions, which are applicable in the facts of the case. They have submitted that the Board Circular No.60/1999 dt.10.09.1999 is specific in the context of ‘goods exported and found defective, damaged or otherwise unfit for use by foreign buyer’, which is not at all the case with respect to impugned re-imported goods. Further, that the said circular