New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (5) TMI 909 - CESTAT KOLKATA

2015 (5) TMI 909 - CESTAT KOLKATA - 2015 (329) E.L.T. 130 (Tri. - Kolkata) - Benefit of project import assessment under Heading 98.01 of CTA,1975 - consignments were imported prior to the registration of the contract - Non fulfillment of mandatory conditions of Regulations (4) &(5) of Project Import Regulations, 1986 - once the classification of the goods imported had been declared at the time of warehousing, by filing into-bond bills of entry, later, at the time of filing the ex-bond bills of e .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

to ascertain the fulfillment of the condition of Registration of Contract. We agree with the contention of the ld. Advocate that even though the judgment laid down in Mihir Textiles case (1997 (4) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) passed under the old regulations, however the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the contract need to be registered prior to the Order of Clearance was passed. - in terms of Regulation No.(4) of the PIR, 1986, the contract should be registered prior to c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Vipin Kr. Jain, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri A. K. Das, Special Counsel ORDER Per Dr. D. M. Misra: This Appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No.KOL/CUS/PORT/42/2014 dated 10.06.2014 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata. 2. Briefly stated factsof the case are that the Appellant had filed eleven Bills of Entry during January and February, 2012 in relation to eleven consignments of goods arrived/brought into India during the period, September, 2011 to February, 2012. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

egistered by the Customs Department on 29.03.2012 provisionally, bearing No. F.No.S-37C(P)-Proj-09/2012A(6) subject to verification of the essentiality certificate. The said essentiality certificate was later issued by the Ministry of Fertilizers on 30.03.2012 which confirmed that the items certified through various letters in favour of M/s Matrix stands goods for customs clearance by M/s EPIL. Subsequently, the Appellant had filed Ex-Bond Bills of Entry, claiming classification under Chapter Su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d Project Contract. Also, it is proposed for confiscation of the goods imported and imposition of penalty under the provisions of Customs Act,1962. On adjudication, the ld. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, had finalized the assessment, denying classification under Sub-Heading 98.01 and the benefit under the Project Import Regulations, 1986; also confirmed the demand of differential duty of ₹ 39,62,46,154/-; directed confiscation of the goods; and imposed redemption fine of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd facts, submitted that the Appellantare an EPC Contractor, have been entrusted with the job of setting up of Green-Field Fertilizers Plant at Panagarh Industrial Area, Durgapur by oneM/s Matrix Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. The Appellant had also entered into a separate Contract with M/s. Matrix for supply of certain equipments required for the said Fertilizers Project. For off-shore items, initially it was agreed that the equipments required for the said Fertilizers Project would be imported .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e Off-Shore Supply Contract for its Integrated Fertilizers Project valued at ₹ 1818.00 crore, after obtaining the Essentiality Certificate on 01.04.11, issued by the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers Department. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata Customs House, registered the said Contract by allotting the Registration F.No.S-37C(P)Project-21/2011A(6). 3.2. It is contended by the ld. Sr. advocate that subsequently it had been agreed between the Appellant and M/s. Matrix that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct Contract registered; the Appellant had also requested for transfer of said contract in their favour registered in the name of M/s. Matrix. However, it was informed by the department that there is no provision for transfer of Registration under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, and hence their request was rejected. Consequently, a request was madefor cancellation of the Registration standing in the name M/s Matrix and issue ofa fresh application inthe name of the Appellant on 23.03.12. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing 98.01 and claimed the benefit of Project Import assessment. The Customs Authorities had objected to such change in classification under Customs Tariff Heading98.01, and after lot of correspondences with the Department on the direction of the Commissioner of Customs (Port), the goods were provisionally assessed and cleared on furnishing security in the form of two bank guarantees for ₹ 33,00,23,605/- and ₹ 1,10,00,000/- (totaling ₹ 34,10,23,605/-)and cash security of ₹ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of entry. Thus the mandatory provisions of regulations (4)&(5) of PIR,1986 are not complied with.He has also observed that once the goods are classified under a particular heading at the time of filing into-bond bill of entry, the classification cannot be altered to 98.01 of CTA,1975 at the time of clearance of the goods by filing ex-bond bills of entry. 3.5. Ld. Sr. Advocate argued that interpretation of clauses (4) & (5) of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 recorded by the Ld. Commi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

umption of the said goods were effected only after filing the ex-bond bills of entry. 3.6. It is his submission that there is a marked difference between the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 and the present provisions of Project Import Regulations, 1986. Under the earlier provisions read with Customs Tariff Heading 84.66 of CTA, 1975 it is necessarythat such contract or contracts has or have been registered before any order is made by the proper Officer of Customs perm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in denying the benefit of Project import assessment has mainly relied upon the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case ofMihir Textiles Ltd. Vs Collector of customs, Bombay 1997 (92) ELT 9(SC). It is his contention that the conclusion arrived at by the ld. Commissioner is the result of an erroneous and improper application of the ratio of the said judgment to the facts of the present case. The Ld. advocate Referring to para 7 of the said judgment, submitted that after analysing the pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

en, the Hon ble Supreme Court proceeded to observe that in all these cases before the court, the Contracts were not registered at all before the order of the clearance was passed. They Ld. Advocate has submitted thatin contrast to the facts of this aid case, in the present case, the Contracts were registered on 29.03.2012 and request for clearance for home consumption had been made thereafter. 3.8. The ld. Sr. Advocate in support of his contention has placed reliance on the decision of this Trib .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e observation of the ld. Commissioner that the Contracts were required to be registered before filing into bond bills of entry and the goods were warehoused for availing the benefit of assessment under Project Import Regulations, is contrary to the said judgment and accordingly, bad in law. 3.9. The ld. Sr. Advocate further submits that the reasoning of the ld. Commissioner that once the classification has been declared in the into-bond bills of entry, the same cannot be changed in the ex-bond b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ferred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dinesh Mills Ltd. vs. CC, 2007(220)ELT 246 (Tri.-Ahmd.). It is his contention that when the goods have to be assessed or re-assessed to duty, it cannot be said that the re-assessment be limited to the same Tariff Heading, under which the goods were earlier assessed, and it is only for the purpose of checking the rate of duty on account of any change made therein and nothing beyond it. Thus, the Tariff Heading could certainly be revised in ca .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs all goods falling under any of the Chapters of the Customs Tariff Act, when imported/cleared underProject import Regulations. 3.11 The Ld. Sr. Advocate has further submitted that this Tribunal in the case of Pratibha Industries Ltd. Vs. CC, NhahaSheva, 2005 (188) ELT 438 (Tri.-Mum.), had not interpreted correctly the principle laid down in Mihir Textile Ltd. Vs. CC,Bombay 1997 (92) ELT 9(SC), Ajanta Offset and PackagingLtd.Vs. CC 1997 (94) ELT 443(SC), and Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. CC 1997(95) EL .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oods for home consumption and also it is bad law as it was passed without referring to the meaning of import referred to in the said Regulation 5 and interpreted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Gardens Silk Mills & Kiran Spg. Mills case(supra). Hence, the said judgment cannot be considered as a binding precedent. 3.12. The ld. Sr. Advocate further submitted that the meaning of import, as recorded by the ld. Adjudicating Authority, is erroneous and contrary to the principle of law laid down b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eme Court in KiranSpinning Mills Vs. CC 1999 (113) ELT 753(SC). After analyzing the definitions of import & India , as prescribed at Section 2(23) and 2(27) of Customs Act,1962 their Lordships had observed that the import of goods into India would commence when the same cross into territorial waters, but it is completed, when the goods become part of the mass of the goods within the country.. In the case of goods which are in the warehouse the Customs barrier would be crossed when they are s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re made prior to registration of the contract under PIR, 1986 i.e before 29th March 2012. Therefore, the future imports that would be effected under the said contract registered on 29th of March 2012, cannot be denied to the benefit of project import assessment. 3.14. The ld. Sr. Advocate further submitted that through Right to Information Act( RTI), they had collected information from various other customs house revealed that the classifications declared at the time of filing into-bond bills of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd non-fulfillment of the said condition would not make the Appellant eligible to Project Import assessment benefit, as has been held in the case of PratibhaIndustires s case (supra). It is his submission that registration not having been done on or before importation, the benefit of Project Import, cannot be extended to the Appellant. 4.1 Further, Analyzing the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Garden Silk Mills case (supra), he submits that the observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, and it would not depend on or wait for the time, when the bill of entry for home-consumption, is filed, if at all, at a later date. 4.2 It is his submission that the eleven consignments in question were imported prior to registration of the contract and the mandatory requirement, as prescribed under Regulation (5) of PIR,1986 , has not been complied with. It is his submission that once the mandatory provision of Project Import Regulations, is not complied with, then in accordance with Note:2 o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Project Import gets out of the purview of Customs Tariff Heading 98.01 and no such consignment would be entitled to avail the benefit, as has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd s case(supra). 4.3 In his rejoinder, the ld. Sr. Advocate has submitted that mixing of the imported goods with the land-mass cannot be construed as completion of the process of import of the goods into India, after crossing the territorial waters and entering into India; on the contrar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, and future imports under the said contract, to the benefit of project import assessment under Heading 98.01 of CTA,1975 read with Project Import Regulations, 1986. 5.1 While denying the said benefit, the ld. Adjudicating Authority anchored his observation on a two-fold reasoning. He has held that since the said consignments were imported prior to the registration of the contract, therefore, mandatory conditionsof Regulations (4) &(5) of Project Import Regulations, 1986, have not been satis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

k Mills and Kiran Spinning s case. It is their argument that in the said Regulations, the requirement of Registration of the contract is on or before clearance of the imported goods rather than on or before its importation (bringing into India)/warehouse of the goods. Also, it is argued that the principle of law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mihir Textile Ltd. s case(supra) has been mis-quoted and not understood in its proper perspective, hence misapplied to the facts and circumstanc .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the present issue reads as: PROJECT IMPORTS (REGISTRATION OF CONTRACT) REGULATIONS, 1965 [Notification No. 183-Cus., dated 18-11-1965 as amended by Notifications No.71-Cus., dated 30-4-1966; No. 117-Cus., dated 18-6-1966; No. 101-Cus., dated5-7-1966; No. 56-Cus., dated 27-6-1970 and No. 282-Cus., dated 2-8-1976.] In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), read with the proviso to the entry in Column 2 against Item 72A (i) of the First Schedule to t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o the Customs Tariff Act. 1975 (51 of 1975). 3. Registration of contract. (1) Every importer claiming assess-, ment of the articles falling under sub-heading No. (i) or sub-heading No. (ii) of the said HeadingNo.84.66 on the importation shall apply in writing to the proper officer of Customs at the port where the goods are to be imported for registration of the contract or contracts, as the case may be: 84.66 (i) (ii) Provided these are imported (whether in one or in more than one consignment) a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

EGULATIONS, 1986 M.F. (D.R.) Notification No. 230/86-Cus., dated 3-4-1986 as amended. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965, except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Board of Excise and Customs hereby makes the following regulations, namely : REGULATION 1.?Short title and commencement. (1) These regulations ma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h are imported (whether in one or more than one consignment) against one or more specific contracts, which have been registered with the appropriate Custom House in the manner specified in regulation 5 and such contract or contracts has or have been so registered, (i) before any order is made by the proper officer of customs permitting the clearance of the goods for home consumption; (ii) in the case of goods cleared for home consumption without payment of duty subject to re-export in respect of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

be paid for registration of the contract or contracts, as the case may be : 5.4. On a simple reading of the aforesaid provisions under both the Regulations in juxtaposition, it is clear that under the old regulations, read with erstwhile Tariff entry 84.66,the contract should be registered before permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption by the Customs officer or before depositing the items in a warehouse; however under the new Regulation, the condition of deposit in warehouse is c .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lation (4) it is made clear that such contract or contracts has or have been registered before any order is made by the proper officer of Customs permitting the clearance of the goods for home consumption. The procedure/guideline for project import assessment has been enumerated by the CBEC in Chapter 5 of Customs Manual at para 3.1 as: 3. Registration of contracts: 3.1 In terms of Regulation 4 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 (PIR) the basic requirement for availing the benefit of assess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ing stipulated for registration of the contract is on or before clearance of the goods for home consumption i.e when it leaves the customs barrier. Needless to mention, clearance of goods for home consumption as mentioned in Regulation (4) of PIR,1986 cannot be construed as crossing of the Indian territorial waters and depositing it in the warehouse. Unhesitatingly, it could be said that the clearance of the goods is for home consumption i.e. when the goods move out of the customs control so as .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s through their letter dt. 29.01.2002 had informed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Mysore that Coal India Ltd. had placed purchase order on the assessee-importer for supply of BH-85 and BH-35 Dumpers and for the manufacture of the said dumpers they were required to import substantial quantity of components to be used in certain identical projects and that the import of the quantity of components would qualify for concessional rate of Duty of Customs under Customs Tariff Sub-Heading9801.00 an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

case of Mihir Textile Ltd., the Apex Court had examined the provisions as under chapter heading 84.66 which clearly laid down that the registration of contract has to be done before clearance of goods for home consumption or before the deposit in the warehouse. This restriction is absent in Regulation 4 & 5 of the present Regulations and in Chapter Heading 98.01. The Regulation 4 specifically omits a reference to the condition regarding registration being done before depositing in a warehous .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

607/05, dated 8-9-2005. The refund is not hit by provisions of unjust enrichment. The appellants succeed in this appeal and the same is allowed by consequential relief, if any. 5.8We find that the ld. Adjudicating Authority has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mihir Textiles Ltd. s case (supra) while denying the benefit of Project Import benefit to the Appellant. The ld. Commissioner has observed that the Hon ble Supreme Court has laid down three conditions .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tration should have been made in the manner prescribed by the regulations; and (3) Registration of the contract should have been obtained before the order for warehousing has been passed. The Hon ble Supreme Court further held that unless all these three conditions are satisfied, no importer can claim, as a matter of right, the concessional relief provided in the entry in the present case, where the goods imported and the Bills of Entry were filed, the contract was not registered. 5.9 The ld. Sr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

which was a little over ₹ 52 lakhs. On 13.04.1983, the appellant had applied to the Collector of Customs for granting registration of the contract as envisaged in Entry84.66 of Customs Tariff and got the registration on 22.4.1983. Consequently, the appellant had filed a refund application on the ground that they were liable to pay Customs Duty only at the concessional rate shown in the aforesaid Entry. The claim for refund was rejected by the Authorities and confirmed by the Tribunal. Afte .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e manner prescribed by the regulations; (3) Registration of the contract should have been obtained before the order (granting permission for clearance of the goods) was passed. Unless all the three conditions are satisfied, no importer can claim, as a matter of right, the concessional relief provided in the entry. In these cases the contracts were not registered at all before the order of clearance was passed. That fact is not disputed before us and as the appellants were aware of position they .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version