Strict construction of customs exemption denied benefit where imports were made by a joint venture constituent, not the contracting entity.

Exemption under Entry 217 of Notification No. 17/2001-Customs was confined to goods imported by the Ministry of Surface Transport, by a contractor awarded the road contract by the specified authority, or by that contractor's sub-contractor, and the notification had to be strictly construed. Although the road project had been awarded to the joint venture, the import was made by one constituent in its own name and with its own funds, not by the joint venture as the contracting entity. The constituent could not be treated as the contractor for exemption purposes, and equity could not relax the statutory conditions. The exemption was therefore not admissible.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Entry 217 of Notification No. 17/2001-Customs was available to goods imported in the name of a constituent of a joint venture, where the contract for road construction stood awarded to the joint venture.

Analysis: The exemption was available only to goods imported by the Ministry of Surface Transport, by a contractor awarded the road contract by the specified authority, or by a sub-contractor of such contractor, and the notification had to be strictly construed. The joint venture in question had no separate legal identity, but the import transaction was carried out by Gammon India Ltd. in its own name and with its own funds, not by the joint venture as the contracting entity. The contract documents and certificate of the Ministry showed that the road project had been awarded to the joint venture, not to Gammon India Ltd. as a distinct contractor. The claim that the individual partner could be treated as the contractor was rejected, and equity could not be used to relax the statutory condition for exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption was not admissible and the import did not satisfy the notification conditions.

---