Project import registration cannot be refused for lack of licence endorsement where the regulations impose no such statutory .

Under Heading 84.66 and the Project Import (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965, registration depended on possession of the Import Trade Control licence and compliance with the prescribed application procedure. The regulations required the licence and an attested statement to accompany the application, but they did not make an endorsement by the licence-issuing authority a statutory pre-condition to registration. The Customs House could treat such endorsement only as an administrative aid for scrutiny, not as an additional legal requirement. Refusal of registration on that basis was therefore unsustainable, and the contracts were entitled to registration with project import treatment.

---

---

Issues: Whether registration of contracts under Heading 84.66 of the Customs Tariff Act could be refused for want of an endorsement on the Import Trade Control licence, and whether such endorsement was a statutory pre-condition under the Project Import (Registration of Contracts) Regulations, 1965.

Analysis: The proviso to Heading 84.66 required the imported goods to be covered by specific contracts registered with the Customs House in the manner prescribed by regulations. Regulation 3(2) required the importer to apply after obtaining the Import Trade Control licence, and Regulation 3(4) required the application to be accompanied by the licence and an attested statement describing the articles licensed to be imported. The relevant regulations did not state that an endorsement by the licence-issuing authority certifying eligibility for project import assessment was a condition precedent to registration. The endorsement was treated by the Customs House as an administrative aid for scrutiny, but not as an additional statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The endorsement insisted upon by the Customs House was not mandatory under the governing tariff heading or regulations, and refusal of registration on that ground was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The contracts were required to be registered and the project import benefit was to be extended to the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative practice cannot be elevated into a statutory condition where the tariff heading and the regulations require only possession of the licence and compliance with the prescribed application procedure.

---