Writ Petition Denied for Customs Duty Exemption on Pre-EOU Import

The court held that the petitioner, seeking exemption from Customs duty for re-importing two Decanter machines, was not entitled to such exemption as the machines were imported before the Export Oriented Unit (EOU) recognition. The court also ruled that the petitioner could not claim duty exemption under Notification 127 for machines imported before EOU recognition. Additionally, the permission granted by the Development Commissioner did not entitle the petitioner to duty exemption, as it could be challenged under the Customs Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petition, denying the release of goods with duty exemption under Notification 127.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of Customs duty and Additional duty for re-importing two Decanter machines after they were exported for repairs.
2. Whether the petitioner can claim exemption under Notification 127 for the re-imported machines installed before the EOU scheme introduction.
3. Whether the permission granted by the Development Commissioner entitles the petitioner to claim duty exemption.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, engaged in tea production, imported two Decanter machines in 1982 and later became a recognized 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). The machines developed issues and were exported for repairs in 1992 and re-imported in 1993. The petitioner sought exemption from Customs duty for re-importation, claiming EOU status. However, the third respondent denied free import, citing the machines were imported before EOU recognition. The court noted the machines were imported pre-EOU and held that the permission granted does not entitle duty exemption, as the endorsement is challengeable under the Customs Act.

2. The petitioner sought to apply Notification 127 for duty exemption, arguing it promotes exports. The respondent contended that the exemption under Notification 127 does not apply to machines imported before EOU recognition. The court agreed with the respondent, emphasizing that the exemption was not intended for machines installed pre-EOU. The court referred to Export and Import Policy clauses and held that the benefit of Notification 127 cannot be extended to machines imported before EOU recognition, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

3. The petitioner relied on the permission granted by the Development Commissioner to claim duty exemption. The court held that the permission granted does not entitle the petitioner to claim duty exemption. The court emphasized that the endorsement could be challenged through a regular appeal under the Customs Act, preserving the petitioner's right to appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the Writ Petition, denying the release of goods with duty exemption under Notification 127.

---