LexMIHIR TEXTILES LTD. ETC. versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. ETC. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY ETC. APRIL 29, 1997 B [SUHAS C. SEN AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Entry No. 84.66--Entitlement to conces- sional relief in payment of customs duty-Non-compliance of conditions necessary for such entitlement-Contract not registered before passing of the C order permitting clearance of the goods from the port-Held, appellants not entitled to concessional relief The appellant in one case, had imported 12 Air Jet Looms along with their accessories and goods. He got them cleared on payment of full duty. After that he applied to the Collector of Customs for granting registration D of his contract with the buyer as envisaged in Entry No. 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Then he filed· a refund application on the premise that he is liable to pay customs duty only at the concessional rate. The claim for refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector. On appeal, the Collector held in favour of the appellant. However, the Customs, Excise and Gold E (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) restored the Assistant Collector's order. In the other case, the appellant got imported licence for importing "Sandzimar Planatory Mill". After that, he contractor with a foreign seller at Sweden to despatch the foresaid Mills. He wrote a letter to the Govern- F ment requesting that the licence might be endorsed for "Project Import". He got cleared the imported goods on payment of full duty. He got the required endorsement and then made an application for refund of the duty on the premise that he was liable to pay custonis duty only at the conces- sional rate. Assistant Collector of Customs, Collector of Customs and G CEGAT rejected the claim. Hence these appeals. Both the appellants claimed that they had done their part in obtain- ing the registration of the import contract as a project import and it was quite improper to have denied the benefit of the concessional relief prescribed in Entry No. 84.66 to the importers. They added that non-com- H pliance of the conditions was only due to the lapses on the part of the 1088 MIHIR TEXTILES LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 1089 authorities concerned. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The proviso to Entry No. 84.66 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 prescribes, principally, three conditions to be satisfied for entitlement A of concession and they are (1) goods should have been imported against a B 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 passing of the order granting permission for clearance of the goods. In the instant cases, the contracts were not registered at all before the C order of clearance was passed. [1092-B-C] 2. In one case, no application was made for registration of the con- tract before the goods were cleared. In the other case the appellant did send a letter to the Ministry of Industry. Even if the letter is treated as applica- tion, there are two circumstances which go against the appellant. First, D though he got the licence he did not make the application for almost six months thereafter. Second, the letter which is claimed to be an application was sent only a month before clearance of the goods and during the remain- ing period he could not expect the Central Government to rush through all the formalities necessary for granting registration. [1092-E-H; 1093-A-B). SB International Ltd. & Ors. v. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade and Others, [1996) 2 SCC 439, referred to. 3. There is no legal foundation for both the appellants to secure the relief prescribed in Entry No. 84.66. [1095-B) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 756 of 1987 Etc. E F From the Judgment and Order dated 31.7.86 of the Customs Excise, Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in CD (SB) A.No. 458 of G 1985-B-2. (Bhaskar Raj Pradhan) for Mrs. M. Karanjawala, S. Ganesh, Amit Bansal,_N.K. Bajpai and V.K. Verma for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H 1090 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R. A THOMAS, J. In both these appeals the question involved is regarding the relief entitlement of the claimants to customs duty payable at the time of clearance of the imported commodities. Under Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs tariff .all items of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.