9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h DGTD, the appellants have been able to obtain a regular certificate in the form of a letter dated 9th January, 1991 from Additional Industrial Advisor addressed to the Collector of Customs, Custom House, Calcutta with a copy to the appellant as also to M/s. Bhagwati Oxygen Limited for whom the appellant is setting up a PSA Oxygen Plant of 25 MT per day at Ghatsila in Bihar. The relevant portion of the letter to DGTD reads as follows :- "We enclose herewith a copy of the letter No. COM/C-3/1764, dated 7-1-1991 from M/s. IOL Ltd., Calcutta. The firm is borne on the list of DGTD for the manufacture of air separation plant at Calcutta. They have stated that they have received an order for the manufacture of one PSA Oxygen Plant from M/s. Bha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endorsement on the concerned licence of the DGTD or the ITC authorities for the purpose of the present import. The separate letter dated 9th January, 1991 of the DGTD addressed to the Collector cannot be accepted on the ground that a separate recommendation is called for if the import is either under OGL or by any Central or State Government Undertaking or any statutory corporation. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal. 2. Learned advocate Shri S.K. Bagaria submits that this reading of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 by the lower authorities is not correct. No doubt, the concerned licence is not endorsed either by the ITC authorities or by the DGTD that the goods covered by the licence are for project import, nevertheless this d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Import Regulation. In this connection, he also draws our attention to the last para of the letter which indicates that attestation of the list (by the DGTD) would not be construed as regarding permissibility or clarification or the item under the policy. He, therefore, submits that the DGTD itself has made it very clear that this recommendation is not a clarification of the ITC Policy. He, therefore, prays for dismissing the appeal. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. The meaning proposed to be given by the adjudicating authority to Regulation 5(4) of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 (supra) does not appear to be quite correct. Even otherwise, we are also of the view that the entire objection of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
