Concessional customs duty denied where conditions under Entry No. 84.66 were not complied with; proviso not directory

The SC dismissed the appeal, holding claimants were not entitled to concessional customs duty where prescribed conditions for relief under entry No. 84.66 were not complied with. The court rejected the argument that the proviso's conditions were merely directory or that statutory concessions should be afforded despite non-compliance caused by administrative lapses. Because no legal foundation existed to grant the reliefs without adherence to the stipulated conditions, the claimants' entitlement to concessional duty at time of clearance was denied.

---

---

Issues:
1. Relief entitlement of claimants to customs duty under Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff.
2. Registration of import contract for concessional rate.
3. Compliance with conditions for concessional relief.
4. Interpretation of conditions as mandatory or directory.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: The judgment concerns the relief entitlement of claimants to customs duty under Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. The appellants sought relief as per the concessional rate of 40% for machinery imported under specific conditions against registered contracts with the Customs House. The main contention was the denial of this relief to the importers.

Issue 2: In the first appeal, the appellant imported Air Jet Looms and applied for registration of the contract after clearance, leading to a refund claim rejection. In the second appeal, the appellant imported a Planetary Mill and faced rejection due to non-registration as "Project Import" before clearance. Both appellants argued that they fulfilled registration requirements and should not be denied the concessional relief.

Issue 3: The judgment highlighted three conditions for entitlement to the concessional rate under Entry No. 84.66: import against a registered contract, compliance with prescribed regulations, and registration before clearance order. The appellants failed to register contracts before clearance, leading to denial of relief. The court dismissed the argument that authorities' lapses caused non-compliance.

Issue 4: The judgment discussed whether the conditions in Entry No. 84.66 were mandatory or directory. The appellants argued that strict interpretation would deny statutory relief. Referring to precedent, the court held that non-compliance with conditions does not invalidate the import or contract but may affect relief entitlement. The court dismissed the appeals, stating no legal basis for the appellants to claim the prescribed reliefs.

---