2017 (2) TMI 137 - AT - Customs

Tribunal affirms appeal decision under Project Import Regulation 1986, finding compliance despite missing documents.

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Versus M/s. Parerhat Industries Pvt. Ltd.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to allow the respondent's appeal in a case involving compliance with Project Import Regulation ... Project import - denial of benefit of Project Import Regulation 1986 on the ground that the respondent have not submitted the required documents - Held that: - it is not the case where the respondent has not submitted the documents. They have submitted reconciliation statement along with invoice and other documents. Therefore Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly observed that whatsoever document submitted by the respondent are sufficient and in compliance to the Rule 7 of the Project Import Regulation 1986 - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:- Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal allowing respondent's appeal- Denial of benefit under Project Import Regulation 1986- Submission of reconciliation statement and documents- Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal- Compliance with Regulation 7 of Project Import Regulation 1986Analysis:The judgment involves an appeal by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal allowing the respondent's appeal. The respondent had imported goods under Project Import Regulation 1986, which were provisionally assessed. The adjudicating authority asked for certain documents and a Reconciliation Statement, which the respondent submitted. However, the authority denied the benefit of the Regulation, leading to a differential duty demand and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal after examining the documents submitted by the respondent. The Revenue contended that since the required documents were not submitted, the appeal should not have been allowed. The Tribunal noted that the respondent had indeed submitted the reconciliation statement and documents, which were found to be sufficient by the Commissioner (Appeals) to establish compliance with the Regulation.The Assistant Commissioner argued that the adjudicating authority rightly denied the benefit as the required documents were not submitted. However, the Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the respondent were satisfactory and compliant with Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulation 1986. The Commissioner (Appeals) detailed the submission of a reconciliation statement, invoices, and other documents, indicating the utilization of the imported goods as per the Regulation. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, emphasizing that the documents submitted were adequate to prove compliance, even though specific documents like original triplicate ex-bond bills of entry were not provided.The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had submitted the necessary documents in line with Regulation 7, and the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly allowed the appeal. The judgment highlighted the sufficiency of the documents submitted by the respondent to establish compliance with the Project Import Regulation 1986. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Order-in-Appeal in favor of the respondent.