2025 (6) TMI 695 - AT - Customs

Misuse of Target Plus Scheme (TPS) by utilizing the license obtained under TPS against export of Ready Made garments for import of plastic granules which allegedly did not have any broad nexus with primary product exported - imported goods were for the actual use of the importer or for supporting manufacturers. HELD THAT - A similar issue has been considered by this Bench in the case of CC (Airport Aircargo) Chennai Vs Sunstar Overseas Ltd. 2025 (5) TMI 670 - CESTAT CHENNAI and after following the very same decisions it is held that the assessee/importers therein has been correctly given the benefit of TPS and the consequent dropping of the proposed proceedings by issuing SCN has been held to be in order. The fact that the very DGFT to whom reference was made by the Revenue to cancel/modify the license has itself accepted that the benefit has been correctly granted to the assessee importer which indicates that the Issuing Authority was completely satisfied with the fact of the fulfilment of the conditions under TPS vis-a-vis FTP and hence the Revenue cannot have any grievance. Moreover we also find from the impugned order that at para 21 the Commissioner has appreciated the pleadings of the assessee about the very Department granting exemptions vide Notification 12/2012- Cus dated 17.03.2012 to the printed polybags for use in packing of readymade garments by exporters registered with Apparel Export Promotion Council (APEC) and that exemption so granted would clearly endorse that the polybags were products used in the manufacture and packing of readymade garments. Conclusion - Imported goods under TPS must be for actual use by the importer or supporting manufacturers including job workers. Appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal are:

(a) Whether the impugned Order-in-Original correctly extended the benefit of the Target Plus Scheme (TPS) to the assessee-respondent, despite the Revenue's contention that there was no 'broad nexus' between the exported products (ready-made garments) and the imported goods (plastic granules) under the TPS license;

(b) Whether the imported goods were for the actual use of the importer or for supporting manufacturers, in compliance with the conditions of Notification No. 32/2005-Cus. and the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP);

(c) Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in accepting the use of imported plastic granules for manufacturing jumbo bags and polybags, which the Revenue contended were distinct from the exported products;

(d) Whether the Revenue's reliance on Circular No. 21/2007-Cus. and other notifications, which were quashed by higher courts, was valid;

(e) Whether penalties imposed on office bearers were justified in light of the findings on the main issue of TPS benefit entitlement.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Validity of TPS benefit extension despite alleged lack of 'broad nexus'

Legal Framework and Precedents: The relevant legal provisions include the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2004-09, particularly paragraph 3.7.6, Notification No. 32/2005-Cus., and Circular No. 21/2007-Cus. The concept of 'broad nexus' is derived from the Handbook of Procedures (HBP) and related judicial pronouncements. Key precedents include the Delhi High Court's ruling in Union of India & Others vs Indian Exporters Grievance Forum and the Bombay High Court's decision in Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. vs Union of India.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that paragraph 3.7.6 of the FTP does not restrict the imported goods to be direct inputs in the exported products. The courts have interpreted 'broad nexus' liberally, requiring only a reasonable connection between the product groups of imported and exported goods. The Tribunal noted that the imported PP/PE granules were used to manufacture packing materials (polybags and jumbo bags) which had a 'broad nexus' with the exported ready-made garments as packing materials are essential for export products.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Original Authority found that the imported granules were used to manufacture packing materials covered under the SION norms and that polybags are manufactured from PP/PE granules. The DGFT, upon investigation, confirmed that the duty credit under TPS was correctly issued. The Tribunal relied on these findings and the absence of contrary evidence from the Revenue.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the judicial interpretations to hold that the imported goods had the requisite 'broad nexus' with the exported products. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's narrow interpretation that the imported goods must be direct inputs in the exported products.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue argued that the imported goods fell in a different product group and that the final products manufactured (jumbo bags) differed from the exported knitted garments. The Tribunal rejected this, relying on the judicial precedent that the nexus is to be understood broadly and that packing materials fall within the scope of inputs related to export products.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Original Authority's finding that the imported goods had a 'broad nexus' with the exported products and were thus eligible for TPS benefits.

Issue (b): Whether the imported goods were for own use or supporting manufacturers, and compliance with Notification No. 32/2005-Cus.

Legal Framework and Precedents: Notification No. 32/2005-Cus., particularly condition No. 3, prohibits sale or transfer of goods imported under TPS and requires actual user condition as defined under para 9.4 of the FTP. The policy permits use of job workers for intermediate conversion of imported inputs.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal observed that the assessee had Central Excise Registration for manufacturing jumbo bags and had paid excise duty on cleared goods. The use of job workers for conversion was recognized under the FTP as consistent with the actual user condition. The Tribunal noted that the imported granules were sent to manufacturing units and that the assessee had complied with the conditions of actual use.

Key Evidence and Findings: Statements, excise registrations, and payment of duties supported the assessee's claim of actual use. The Revenue failed to produce evidence of diversion or transfer in violation of the conditions.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were used by the assessee or supporting manufacturers/job workers as permitted, and thus the conditions of Notification 32/2005 were satisfied.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue contended that no supporting manufacturers were declared and that the goods were diverted. The Tribunal found no material evidence to support these allegations and relied on the Original Authority's findings.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Original Authority's conclusion that the imported goods were for actual use and not diverted, complying with the statutory conditions.

Issue (c): Distinction between imported products and exported products and applicability of customs exemptions

Legal Framework and Precedents: Customs Notification 12/2012-Cus. exempts printed polybags used in packing readymade garments. The question was whether jumbo bags and polybags differed materially for TPS benefit purposes.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal accepted the Original Authority's reasoning that packing materials, including polybags and jumbo bags, are used in the manufacture and packing of exported garments. The Tribunal noted that the exemption notification endorsed the use of polybags in the textile export sector.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Original Authority's observations and the exemption notification supported the assessee's position. The Revenue's argument about the difference between printed polybags and jumbo bags was not supported by evidence.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the imported goods were related to packing materials for exported garments, thus falling within the ambit of permissible inputs under TPS.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's technical distinction between product types was rejected as not material to the nexus requirement.

Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the benefit of TPS to the assessee in respect of imported packing materials.

Issue (d): Validity of reliance on Circular No. 21/2007-Cus. and other notifications quashed by courts

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court had quashed Circular No. 21/2007-Cus. and related provisions restricting TPS benefits. The principle of natural justice prohibits introducing new grounds at appellate stage not raised in the SCN.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal held that the Revenue's reliance on quashed circulars and notifications was misplaced. The Revenue had not contended violation of these provisions in the SCN, and raising them at appeal stage was impermissible. The courts had held that DGFT lacked jurisdiction to restrict post-export incentives arbitrarily.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the absence of such grounds in the SCN and the binding judicial rulings invalidating those circulars.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal declined to entertain the Revenue's arguments based on quashed circulars and notifications.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's attempt to rely on these was rejected as beyond scope and contrary to settled law.

Conclusion: The Tribunal affirmed that the impugned order correctly disregarded the quashed circulars and notifications.

Issue (e): Justification of penalties imposed on office bearers

Legal Framework and Precedents: Penalties under Customs Act arise only if violations are established. If TPS benefit is validly extended, penalties for associated persons lack basis.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the Tribunal upheld the correctness of the TPS benefit extension and found no violation, it also held that penalties imposed on office bearers were not justified.

Key Evidence and Findings: No material evidence was found to support imposition of penalties.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal dismissed appeals against dropping penalties.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: Revenue's appeal against penalty dropping was rejected.

Conclusion: Penalties were rightly not imposed and appeals against that were dismissed.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's crucial legal reasoning includes:

"Para (3.7.6.) of the FTP, by itself, does not indicate that the imported goods should constitute inputs in the goods exported. It is not possible to read para (3.7.6.) restrictively."

"Given the objective of providing an incentive to exporters, para (3.7.6.) of the FTP can reasonably be interpreted to require an exporter to show that the goods imported should have broad nexus with reference to any product group of the exported groups within the overall value of the entitlement certificate."

"Para (3.7.6.) on its plain construction does not incorporate a requirement that the goods which are imported as inputs must find physical incorporation in the export products in relation to which the benefit of the TPS is claimed."

"The goods imported under TPS license have to be converted into a resultant product to fulfil the actual user condition. The policy itself recognizes the fact that the actual user would mean a person utilizing the imported goods for manufacturing in their own industrial unit or manufacturing for his own use in another unit, including a job unit."

"The very DGFT to whom reference was made by the Revenue to cancel/modify the license has itself accepted that the benefit has been correctly granted to the assessee- importer which indicates that the Issuing Authority was completely satisfied with the fact of the fulfilment of the conditions under TPS vis-a-vis FTP."

Core principles established include:

(i) The 'broad nexus' requirement under TPS is to be interpreted liberally and does not require direct input incorporation;

(ii) Imported goods under TPS must be for actual use by the importer or supporting manufacturers including job workers;

(iii) Reliance on quashed circulars or notifications is impermissible at appellate stage;

(iv) Penalties cannot be imposed absent proven violations.

Final determinations:

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, upheld the impugned Order-in-Original extending TPS benefits, and confirmed the dropping of penalties against office bearers.