1986 (10) TMI 116 - AT - Customs

Tribunal denies Project Import benefit due to non-compliance with regulations under Heading 84.66 CTA

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, denying the appellants the Project Import benefit due to non-compliance with mandatory requirements ... Project imports Issues:Claim for Project Import benefit on imported goods denied due to non-registration of contract before clearance.Analysis:The appellants manufactured oxygen and acetylene gases in Jamshedpur and imported 500 gas cylinders, seeking Project Import benefit. The import licence was endorsed for Project Import, but the Bill of Entry did not indicate the same. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim as the purchase order was registered after clearance, contrary to rules.The appellants appealed to the Appellate Collector, who upheld the rejection based on Heading 84.66 CTA provisions. The appellants then filed a revision application, treated as an appeal by the Tribunal. The appellants argued that Project Import benefit was allowed for 1500 cylinders later imported, showing inconsistency and injustice. They claimed the import licence, with Project Import endorsement, filed with the Bill of Entry, indicated their intention.The SDR submitted that the Bill of Entry lacked the Project Import endorsement, and the contract registration was filed after importation, not meeting the proviso under Heading 84.66 CTA. He cited a Tribunal judgment favoring the Revenue in a similar case. The Tribunal found the facts undisputed, with no endorsement on the Bill of Entry for Project Import.The Tribunal rejected the appellants' arguments, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the proviso under Heading 84.66 CTA. The Tribunal dismissed the relevance of case laws cited by the appellants, as they did not align with the present case's circumstances. The Tribunal highlighted that the contract registration before importation was crucial for availing Project Import benefits.Referring to a previous Tribunal order with similar facts, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, denying the appellants the concessional assessment and refund. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not entitled to the Project Import benefit due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements under Heading 84.66 CTA. The appeal was dismissed.