M/S. Rajesh Art Printers vs Commissioner Of Customs(Import), ...
- CitationAPPEAL NO. C/265/09-MUM
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where goods imported as Project Imports under Chapter Heading 98.01 would otherwise be classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.79 and attract the same concessional rate of duty under the applicable exemption notifications, procedural non-compliance with the Project Import Regulations (such as failure to file the reconciliation statement, loss of original documents, non-submission of the installation certificate, or unauthorised relocation of the machinery) may be condoned, and the importer is entitled to the concessional duty benefit, since the substantive benefit would in any event have been available on the correct classification.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in- Original No. 179/2008/CAC/CC(I)/SR/Contract Cell dtd. 24/12/2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Import), New Custom House, Mumbai-I]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member(Technical) Honble Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial)
=======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental: Yes authorities? =======================================================
M/s. Rajesh Art Printers : Appellants
VS
Commissioner of Customs(Import), Mumbai : Respondent
Appearance
Shri. Narendra Dave, C.A. for the Appellants Shri. Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)
Date of hearing: 18/8/2015 Date of decision: 18/8/2015
ORDER NO.
Per : P.S. Pruthi
This appeal arises from Order-in- Original No. 179/2008/CAC/CC(I)/SR/Contract Cell dtd. 24/12/2008 under which benefit of concessional rate of duty of import under Project Import Regulation, 1986 has been denied. Accordingly, duty demand is confirmed, goods confiscated, penalty imposed and Bond ordered to be executed in favour of Commissioner towards recovery of the dues.
2. Appellant imported capital goods i.e. machinery for manufacturing pre-recorded audio casettes under Chapter Heading 98.01of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. For the goods falling under this heading, the importer are require to follow the Project Import Regulations (PIR) made under Section 157 of the Custom Act. It was found that the following the conditions of the PIR were not fulfilled:
(a) Reconciliation statement within three months of the clearances of last consignment was not submitted.
(b) The original documents were not made available to Customs as the same were stated to be washed away in floods.
(c) Accordingly installation certificate was not submitted
(d) On plant site verification it was found that part of their premises were rented out to another company.
(e) The imported machinery were shifted to appellants warehouse at Navi Mumbai without informing the Customs authorities.
(f) The appellant did not reach the production level of substantial expansion i.e increase of 25% of the installed capacity which was the main condition for availing concessional rate of duty.
In view of this above failings, the Ld. Commissioner passed the said impugned order against the appellant.
3. Ld. Counsel for the appellant statesd that they undertook production for 10 years and used machinery for the purpose for which it was imported. They stopped production after 10 years as their business became unviable on account of technical progress in this industry. The submission of reconciliation statement is only a procedural lapse and should not stand in the way of substantial benefit. He stated that, even if benefit of Project Imports is denied, the goods were assessable at the same rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 49/95-Cus dated 16/3/1995, Notification no. 90/95-Cus dated 1/9/1995 and Notification No. 36/96-Cus dated 23/7/1996 in respect of their goods falling under Chapter Heading 84.79. During the course of arguments it became clear that the goods in question would otherwise get classified under chapter heading 84.79 and the machinery for production of commodities falling under this Heading is exempted under above Notifications. This issue has not been addressed by the Commissioner.
4. In view of the fact that the same concessional rate of duty would have been available to the appellant if they had imported goods under chapter heading 84.79 and not as Project Imports under Chapter heading 98.01, we condone the lapses in following Project Import Regulations and allow substantial benefit which in any case would have been available in terms of the above cited notifications.
5. The impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
(Operative order pronounced in court)
Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.S. Pruthi Member (Technical)
sk
4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free