Project import registration can be refused for non-production of a sponsoring authority's recommendation when the proper officer requires it.

Regulation 3(5) of the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 permits the proper officer to require additional documents or particulars for registration, so a sponsoring authority's recommendation letter could validly be called for even though it was not expressly listed in the 1965 text. Paragraph 177(3) of the Handbook supported that requirement for machinery imported under OGL, and the later 1986 Regulations did not mean the earlier regime barred such a demand. Because the importer failed to produce the document specifically required, refusal of project import registration was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether registration of a project import contract under Regulation 3 of the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 could be refused for want of the sponsoring authority's recommendation letter, and whether such recommendation was only advisory or a required document when called for by the proper officer.

Analysis: Regulation 3(5) requires the importer to furnish such other documents or particulars as may be required by the proper officer in connection with registration of the contract. Paragraph 177(3) of the Handbook of Import-Export Procedures states that where machinery is imported under OGL, the benefit of concessional duty may be allowed on the recommendation of the sponsoring authority. The requirement is not rendered optional merely because it is not expressly listed in the 1965 Regulations, since that sub-clause empowers the proper officer to seek additional documents. The later incorporation of such a requirement in the 1986 Regulations does not mean the earlier regime prohibited the Department from asking for it. On the facts, the proper officer had specifically required the sponsoring authority's recommendation, and the appellant did not produce the required document.

Conclusion: The recommendation of the sponsoring authority was a valid requirement in the circumstances, and refusal of registration for non-production of that document was justified.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the contract could not be registered for project import without compliance with the document requirement demanded by the proper officer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant registration regulation empowers the proper officer to call for additional documents, failure to furnish a sponsoring authority's recommendation when specifically required can validly defeat registration for project import benefit.

---