TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions, 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 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Port Trust (NSPT) now known as Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust' (JNPT) awarded a contract (termed as contract III) dated 15/12/1986 to M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd., South Korea for setting up the NSPT Port Project. In the said contract, NSPT has been termed as the Employer' and M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. as the Contractor'. 3.2 Pursuant to the said contract, M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. imported Container Handling Equipment and spares for NSPT Project between 1988 and 1990. However, before clearance of the goods, it sought to avail itself of the project import benefit under the Projects Imports Regulations, 1986. Accordingly, it applied for registration of the Contract-III to the then Assistant Collector of Customs Project Cell, New Custom House, Bombay vide its letter dated 12/09/1988. 3.3 The Assistant Collector of Customs registered the said contract provisionally subject to production of a recommendatory letter for duty concession from the concerned Sponsoring Authority, namely the Ministry of Surface Transport. 3.4 Therefore, the goods were cleared under heading 98.01 of the Customs Tariff on payment of concessional rate of duty under various bills of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that interest cannot be demanded for the period prior to 13/07/2006 inasmuch as there were no legal provision for recovery of interest in the case of provisional assessment prior to the said date. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions: 4.1 In terms of the Project Import Regulations 1986, as it stood at the relevant time, there was no requirement of a recommendatory letter/certificate from the sponsoring authority or from the Director General of Technical Development. 4.2 The goods required for the project are covered by a licence issued by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Only in respect of the goods covered by an Open General Licence such a requirement was prescribed. In the present case, the licence issued to M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. specifically covered the items required for the said project. It is further contended that Samsung Co. Ltd. was awarded the contract on the basis of a global tender and on the basis of the said contract, the licence to import the goods was issued to them. Further, recommendatory letter of the sponsoring authority was required only when the imports were made by government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng Co. Ltd. vide letter dated 07/10/1988 had informed the department that they would be producing the said certificate through JNPT from the concerned Ministry at the earliest and also that the benefit of concession would be passed on to M/s. JNPT. In the said letter, they had further confirmed that customs duty would be paid directly by M/s. JNPT on all the equipment and spares imported under the contract. This position was reiterated by M/s. JNPT vide letter dated 15/10/1988 sent to M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. Further, vide leter dated 20/12/1988, M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. informed the Customs authorities that they would be submitting the recommendatory letter from the Ministry of Surface Transport for availing the benefit of concessional rate for projects import within a month's time through JNPT. There is a corroboration to this effect in letter dated 23/12/1988 issued by M/s. JNPT addressed to the Customs authorities. It was in these circumstances, the project was allowed to be provisionally registered and the concessional rate of customs duty under project import was extended. 5.1 Subsequently, M/s. JNPT also took up the matter with the Central Board of Excise and Customs for wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Government, any State Government, statutory Corporation, public body or Government undertaking run as a joint stock company. 6.2 Subsequently, this condition was amended w.e.f. 10/03/1992 and the revised provisions read as follows: 4) The application shall be accompanied by the original deed of contract together with a true copy thereof, the import trade control licence, wherever required, and an approved list of items from the Directorate General of Technical Development or the concerned sponsoring authority. 6.3 From the above provisions, prior to 10/03/1992, the importer was required to submit a copy of the contract, the import trade control licence specifically describing the articles licensed to be imported. The requirement of producing 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. The said requirement was not mandated if the goods were covered by an import trade control licence or the imports were made by importers not covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the appellant is rightly entitled for the benefit of Project Import Regulations. Therefore, the impugned demand denying the benefit of Project Import concessions to M/s. Samsung Co. Ltd. is clearly not sustainable in law and accordingly we set aside the same. Inasmuch as there is no violation of any provisions of law, the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, is also not warranted and consequently the 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 clearly unsustainable in law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
