Supreme Court upholds ruling denying concessional customs duty on goods under Tariff Heading 84.66

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision that the appellants were not entitled to the concessional rate of customs duty under Tariff Heading 84.66. The Court found that the goods were not imported against registered contracts before clearance for home consumption, as required by the proviso to Tariff Heading 84.66. The subsequent Bill of Entry could not claim the concessional duty, leading to the appellants being held liable for customs duty at the normal rate as per the 1979 Notification.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for concessional rate of customs duty under Tariff Heading 84.66 in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The appellants entered into a contract for the import of equipment to be initially imported for display in an exhibition and later cleared for delivery. The goods were imported under a notification exempting duty for exhibition goods. The contract was registered under Project Import Regulations after the exhibition. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for clearance under Tariff Heading 84.66, but the Assistant Collector denied the Project Import benefit. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the benefit, but the Tribunal reversed the decision, leading to the current appeal.

The proviso to Tariff Heading 84.66 requires goods to be imported against registered contracts before clearance for home consumption. The contract between the parties was registered after the goods were imported and the Bill of Entry was submitted. The Tribunal rightly rejected the argument that the initial Bill of Entry was not for home consumption, as it was not for transit or warehousing, making it a Bill of Entry for home consumption. The subsequent Bill of Entry cannot claim concessional duty under Tariff Heading 84.66.

Section 46 of the Customs Act mandates entry of goods by presenting a Bill of Entry for home consumption. The initial Bill of Entry was for home consumption, and there cannot be a second Bill of Entry for the same goods. Therefore, the appellants cannot avail the concessional duty under Tariff Heading 84.66 based on the subsequent Bill of Entry. The Tribunal correctly held the appellants liable for customs duty at the normal rate as per the 1979 Notification.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them without costs.

---