Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 duty on naphtha cleared against international competitive bidding exemption could be demanded from the supplier when the buyer used part of the goods otherwise than for manufacture of fertilizers, and whether penalty could survive once the duty demand failed.
Analysis: The exemption for goods supplied against international competitive bidding was linked to the corresponding customs exemption for naphtha meant for manufacture of fertilizers. The customs exemption was conditional and required compliance with the prescribed concessional-duty procedure, which was mandatory in nature. On the facts, the supplier had satisfied the pre-clearance conditions at the time of removal, while the actual end-use of the goods was a post-clearance matter to be ensured by the buyer and user manufacturer. The supplier could not be fastened with liability for the buyer's failure to use the goods for the intended purpose, and the emphasis on the word "supplied" did not alter that position.
Conclusion: Duty could not be demanded from the supplier, and penalty also could not be sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption is conditional upon end use, the liability for differential duty on breach of the end-use condition rests on the user manufacturer who fails to comply, not on the supplier who has fulfilled the pre-clearance requirements.