Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (5) TMI 163 - CESTAT MUMBAIEntitlement for benefit of Project Import Regulations – Confiscation of imported Goods - Redemption fine – Requirement of recommendatory letter from DGTD/sponsoring authority – Principal-to-principal basis contract - Suppliance of material handling equipment - Differential duty demand - Levy of Penalty - Section 111 (o), 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 – Imposition of another penalty - Section 112(a) and 112 (b) - Held that:- Recommendatory letter from DGTD/sponsoring authority was required only in respect of imports covered by Open General Licence or imports made by Central Government, State Government, statutory Corporations, public body or government undertakings run as a joint stock company - It was not mandated if the goods were covered by an import trade control licence or the imports were made by importers not covered by the above category of persons. In terms of said contract, M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. obtained import licence No. 2042567 dated 07/10/1987 for import of the material handling equipment - Project Import Regulations, 1986 did not envisage submission of recommendation letter from the sponsoring authority in the case of goods, the import of which were covered by an Import Licence and when the imports were made by non-governmental authorities Para 288 of the Handbook of Procedures of the Foreign Trade Policy stipulated a condition that for the grant of project import benefits, recommendation from the sponsoring authority was required in addition to the licence - However, this condition was in existence only in the policy provisions relating to 1985-88 and the said condition was deleted when the policy provisions relating to 1988-91 came into force w.e.f. 01/04/1988 - The period of imports in the present case is after 01/04/1988. As per the policy prevailing at the time of importation, there was no requirement of obtaining any recommendation from the sponsoring authority - Thus, both in terms of the Project Import Regulations, as also in terms of the Foreign Trade Policy, there was no requirement of obtaining any recommendation letter from the sponsoring authority and hence this stipulation by the Customs authority on the basis of a public notice issued by them is not sustainable in law - Any requirement with respect to registration has to be in terms of the Project Import Regulations or the Foreign Trade Policy as it stood at the relevant point of time - Further, the Bills of Entries had been filed by M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd in their own name and the customs duty payments have also been made in the name of M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. as per the documentary evidence available on record – Therefore, appellant is rightly entitled for the benefit of Project Import Regulations - Thus, the impugned demand denying the benefit of Project Import concessions to M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. is clearly not sustainable in law and the same is set aside - Inasmuch as there is no violation of any provisions of law, the confiscation of the goods u/s 111(o) is also not warranted and question of imposing any redemption fine would not arise - Inasmuch as there is no commission or omission on the part of the importer and M/s. JNPT, imposition of penalties on them is also unsustainable in law - Inasmuch as differential duty demand itself is not sustainable, there cannot be any demand towards interest – Therefore, the impugned order is set aside – Decided against revenue.
|