1991 (9) TMI 88 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of Notification No. 84-ITC (PN)/90-93 for import entitlement certificate; Application process for obtaining OGL items; Requirement of application for release of goods; Import conditions for Actual Users (Industrial); Eligibility criteria for exemption from customs duty.

In this judgment, the petitioner relied on Notification No. 84-ITC (PN)/90-93 issued by the Government of India concerning the Import and Export Policy for a specific period. The petitioner, a small-scale unit with a Phased Manufacturing Programme, applied to the sponsoring authority, Directorate of Cottage & Small Scale Industries, West Bengal, for an OGL Import Entitlement Certificate. A letter recommending the petitioner's case for import of raw materials was issued by the Additional Director of Industries. The petitioner contended that the Customs Authorities required no formal application for goods release, and the sponsoring authority was to communicate directly with the Controller of Imports & Exports. The respondents emphasized the requirement for Actual Users (Industrial) to apply in a prescribed form with supporting documents from the preceding year, which the petitioner claimed not to have done.

The petitioner imported goods for manufacturing X-ray tubes, a product essential in medical and industrial sectors. The petitioner firm had Ministry of Industries' approval for manufacturing electronic goods under specific categories. The Central Government granted partial exemption from customs duty subject to conditions like recommendation by a designated officer and execution of a bond by the importer. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument, rejecting the respondents' misinterpretation of the Notification regarding Actual Users (Industrial) and holding that the petitioner qualified under paragraph 4 of the Notification.

The court ordered the issuance of the Actual User Certificate to the petitioner by a specified date without any port charges due to unnecessary detention of goods. The Customs Authorities were directed to pay costs to the petitioner for damages caused by delayed release of goods. The court denied the respondents' request for a stay of the order, citing no substantial legal issues raised. All parties were instructed to act as per the court's order, with the usual undertaking.