9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 345X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacture and sale of telecommunication equipment. They have a Research and Development Unit/Lab, as a part of their undertaking. They imported certain articles which, they claimed, were being used in the said R & D Unit. The dispute in these appeals is whether they were entitled to import the said articles free of customs duty under exemption Notification No. 70/81-Customs, dated 26-3-1981. 3. We had an occasion earlier to deal with the same issue in another batch of appeals filed by the same appellants. Our earlier order reported at (1987) 30 E.L.T. 523 (Tribunal). In the said order, we had formulated the following three issues for our consideration :- (1) Whether the R & D Unit of the appellants was a research institution; (2) Wheth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their R & D Unit. Their internal working was explained as follows. The Chief Engineer (Research) of the R & D Unit prepared a list of the goods required to be imported. The same officer also acted in a dual capacity as the Purchase Officer of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. In the said capacity as the Purchase Officer, he placed an indent on the foreign supplier. The indent was, no doubt, placed in the name of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries and, consequently, the foreign supplier issued the invoice also in the name of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. However, the order number mentioned in the import invoice had the prefix "R" which indicated that the order was for research. In some of the bills of entry, though not in all, the words s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnments should be decided strictly in accordance with the statutory definition of Section 2(26) read with Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. He supported the earlier conclusion of the Bench that the imports were not by a Research Institution but by a commercial undertaking. 7. Before proceeding with the discussion, it would be worthwhile noticing our earlier conclusions on this point. We reproduce below paragraph 8 of our earlier order: * * & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was placed by M/s. I.T.I., since the foreign supplier made out the import invoice in the name of M/s. I.T.I. and since M/s. I.T.I. filed the customs bills of entry and cleared the goods, it was M/s. I.T.I. who was the importer and not their R & D Unit. Under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, the importer of the goods has to file the bill of entry and to subscribe to the statutory declaration therein. Unless in a particular case the goods have been lawfully purchased by such importer on high sea sale basis, it also follows that the import invoice should be in the name of the importer. The import invoice has to be submitted alongwith the bill of entry. This is also a statutory requirement of Section 46. In terms of the statutory provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Purchase Officer of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. If the import invoices and the bill of entry had been made out in either the name of the Research Institution or in the joint name as indicated by us, it could have brought out that the importation was by the R & D Unit. But, as it is, the name of the R & D Unit does not figure in any statutory customs document. We, therefore, do not agree with the appellants' contention that the importation was by the R & D Unit and that M/s. I.T.I, acted only as a conduit. The position as on the record is that the importations were by M/s. I.T.I. only. 10. We do not agree with the appellants' pleading that in the formulation "by or against the order of" or "by or on behalf of", the underlined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
