TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Tariff all items of machinery, including industrial plant, can get clearance on payment of a concessional rate of 40%, if the goods are imported under certain conditions against specific contract registered with the Customs House. The grievance of the appellants herein is that such relief was not granted to them. 2.Appellant in one of these appeals had imported 12 Air Jet Looms along with their accessories and the goods arrived at the Bombay Port on 18-3-1983. Appellant got them cleared from the port on 31-3-1983 on payment of full duty which was a little above 52 lacs of rupees. On 13-4-1983 he applied to the Collector of Customs for granting registration of his contract with the buyer as envisaged in Entry No. 84.66 of the Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 1981 he got them cleared by payment of full duty (which is a little less than 20.5 lacs rupees). Appellant got the required endorsement on 14-8-1981 and then he made an application for refund of the duty paid by him. The application was made on the premise that he was liable to pay customs duty only at the concessional rate prescribed under Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. Assistant Collector of Customs rejected his refund claim on the main ground that he had not obtained registration of the import contract as "a Project Import". Appellant filed an appeal before Collector of Customs (Appeals) and when that was rejected he went before CEGAT in further appeal and that too was dismissed by the impugned order. 5.The contention adopted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titlement of the concessional rate shown in the aforesaid entry. They are - (1) Goods should have been imported against a specified contract registered with the appropriate Customs House; (2) Such registration should have been made in the 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 chose to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s thereafter. Second is that even the letter which he claims to be the prescribed application was sent only a month before clearance of the goods from the port and during the remaining period he could not expect the Central Government to rush through all the formalities necessary for granting registration. If any hasty steps were adopted on the application the resultant order would have been vulnerable to be assailed as an act done with undue haste. In this context learned Additional Solicitor General referred us to the following observations made by Jeevan Reddy. J in S.B. International Ltd. others v. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade Others - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) = 1996 (2) SCC 439 : "On receipt of the application, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidering the implication of non-compliance with the conditions provided in Article 320(3) of the Constitution on an order imposing punishment to a Government servant without reference to the Public Service Commission. While considering that question learned Judges made a reference to the Privy Council decision in Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandin - AIR 1917 PC 142 and the Federal Court decision in Biswanath Khemka v. Emperor - AIR 1945 FC 67. The Constitution Bench held that the provisions of Article 320(3) are not mandatory and non-compliance of those provisions does not afford any cause of action in a court of law. Privy Council in the above quoted decision has observed that the question whether provisions in a statute are dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey were liable to pay duty on the intermediary product and had not paid the same, but had paid the duty on the end product, they could not ordinarily have complied with the requirements of Rule 56A." Nor can we find support from the ratio in B.O.I. Finance Ltd. v. The Custodian Others, JT 1997 (4) 15, that "infringements of the instructions issued by the Reserve Bank of India under the Banking Regulations Act prohibiting the banks from entering into buy-back arrangements do not invalidate such contracts entered into between the banks and it's customers", as it involved a question of invalidation of the contract. Here neither the contract nor the import is invalid or illegal and the question is only whether the importer is entitled to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
