Syncotts International vs Cc, Mumbai-I

[Arising out of Order-in- Appeal No. 111/2005(JNCH) dtd. 5/4/2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), JNCH, Sheva Mumbai]

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? =======================================================

Syncotts International : Appellants

VS

CC, Mumbai-I : Respondent

Appearance

Shri. Dr. Y.B. Kumar, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. M.K. Sarangi, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent

CORAM:

Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing: 5/8/2015 Date of decision: /2015

ORDER NO.

Per : P.S. Pruthi

The appellant imported tennis court requisites and filed Bill of Entry classifying the goods under chapter heading 9506 claiming the benefit of notification 146/94. The department was of the view that the goods have not been classified properly and benefit of the notification is not admissible. Following the principles of natural justice, the Dy. Commissioner denied the benefit of notification and demanded duty of Rs. 655445.46. The Dy. Commissioner held the classification of the various items under chapter sub heading 3214.10 ( for five items), 3208.90, 9603.90, 8202.99 and 6914.90. In appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that benefit of notification No. 146/94 dated 31/7/1994 is available only when the goods are imported into India by National Sports Federation under certificate issued by the Sport Authority of India. As the goods were imported on behalf of the All India Tennis Federation, the Commissioner did not consider the Federation as the importer and held that benefit of the notification is not available.

2. Main argument of the Ld. Counsel is that a certificate was produced from the Sport Authority of India certifying that the goods have been imported by All India Tennis Association and are to be used in national/international competition. He contended that the invoices and the bill of entry indicate the name of the importer as M/s. Syncott International account of All India Tennis Association. All India Tennis Association also gave a certificate to the Central Bank of India for opening LC with the supplier and stated in that letter that the All India Tennis Association is importing the goods.

3. Learned A.R. appearing on behalf of the Revenue stated that in case a notification intends to exempt goods which are imported by or for delivery to any person then the intention is specifically brought out in the notification. He cited the example of Notification No. 51/96-CUS dated 23/7/1996. He further stated that as the goods have not been imported by a National Sports Federation, the benefit of exemption is not available.

4. We have considered the facts and submissions made by both sides.

5. The Commissioner held that the goods per se cannot be considered as sport requisites. We find that Notification 146/94 exempted goods namely sport goods, sport equipment, sport requisite on the condition that

(a) The said goods are imported into India by a National Sports Federation, under a certificate issued by the Sports Authority of India for use in a national or international championship or competition, to be held in India of abroad;

We find that Tribunal in its order in the case of All India Tennis Association Vs. Commissioner[2003(161) ELT 677(Tri.) allowed the benefit to raw material for synthetic track by considering it as a sport requisite and consequently admissible for exemption under notification(supra). The Tribunal while arriving at its decision considered Board Circular No. 70/02 dated 25/10/2002. Therefore, we hold that the Dy. Commissioner classified goods wrongly.

5.1 The question that remains to be answered is whether in terms of above notification, All India Tennis Association can be considered as importer in the instant case. We would believe so because invoices as well as Bill of Entry clearly state that the goods are imported on the account of All India Tennis Association. A certificate has issued by the apex Sports body in the country i.e. Sport Authority of India also certifying that import is being made by the All India Tennis Association. The LC which is opened also indicates that importer is the Tennis Association. There is no doubt that the All India Tennis Association has used the goods/ material for their tennis court to be used in national /international competition. The definition of importer in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act reads as (26)?importer, in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer;. In the present case facts reveals that the All India Tennis Association is held to be the importer both by the appellant as well as the Association. Therefore the conditions of the Notification are met. The conditions of the notification being fulfilled, we held that benefit of notification 146/94 dated 31/7/1994 is admissible.

6. Appeal is allowed.

(Order pronounced in court on _________)

Ramesh Nair Member (Judicial) P.S. Pruthi Member (Technical)

sk

5 C/972/05 NZB