Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported computer equipment was eligible for duty-free clearance under the exemption notification on the strength of the NMI certificate, and whether the refund claim could be denied or the matter remanded after such a long lapse of time.
Analysis: The certificate issued by the Department of Electronics stated that the importer was entitled to duty-free import under Notification No. 282/84-Cus. dated 19th November, 1984, as amended by Notification No. 103/86-Customs dated 17-2-86. The records, including the bill of entry and accompanying correspondence, showed that the goods were computer peripherals intended for the Research and Development Centre, and the certificate was addressed to the concerned materials manager of the unit. In the circumstances, the Tribunal found sufficient basis to accept the certificate and declined to send the matter back for fresh examination after nearly eighteen years from the date of import. Since the goods were for research purposes, unjust enrichment was held not to arise.
Conclusion: The importer was held entitled to duty-free import under the certificate and exemption notification, and the objection based on unjust enrichment failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent department's certificate establishes entitlement to exemption and the goods are shown to be for research use, the benefit of duty-free import cannot be denied by remanding the matter for re-examination after an inordinate delay, and unjust enrichment does not apply.