2025 (5) TMI 670 - AT - Customs

Revenue's appeal dismissed as Commissioner correctly allowed TPS benefits for imported plastic granules used in export packaging materials

The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Air cargo) Chennai Versus M/s. Sunstar Overseas Ltd.

CESTAT Chennai dismissed Revenue's appeal challenging Commissioner's decision to drop proceedings against assessee claiming TPS benefits. The case ... Correctness in entertaining the plea of the assessee and dropping further proceedings - power of Revenue to challenge the eligibility or otherwise of the assessee for the benefit of TPS which is the scheme launched by DGFT, which is the proper authority - exemption from Customs Duty on imported plastic granules under the Target Plus Scheme (TPS) when the imported goods did not have a direct nexus with the exported products (rice and spices). Whether the Commissioner was correct in entertaining the plea of the assessee and dropping further proceedings? - HELD THAT:- Considering the reasoning adopted by the Third Member and, in effect, the majority opinion of this Tribunal in MMTC Ltd. [2016 (2) TMI 1008 - CESTAT BANGALORE], in the present case too, the exported goods are ‘rice and spices’ which belong to the food group. The imported goods are ‘plastic granules’, which certainly do not belong to the food group. It may be true that the plastic bags being produced from the granules are necessary to export the rice and spices. However, this does not render the plastic bags or packaging to be the ‘exported goods’. The ‘exported goods’ remain the rice and spices. Therefore, the first question framed is answered in the negative and against in favour of the Appellant-Revenue, that is to say that the exported goods are not the ‘plastic bags’ or ‘packaging’, but the ‘rice and spices’. Since it is held that the ‘exported goods’ are the rice and the spices, the second question of matching the product group of the plastic granules and the plastic bags does not arise for consideration. Whether the Customs Department could challenge the eligibility of the respondent for TPS benefits, which is a scheme administered by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), or whether such authority exclusively rests with the DGFT? - HELD THAT:- The TPS is administered by DGFT and consequently, it is the DGFT alone which can say whether an importer or the exporter has satisfied the conditions of TPS or not. The revenue in the case on hand has sought the reference to Customs Notification No.32/2005, to say that the importer/assessee has not fulfilled the conditions under TPS but however, the scheme launched by the DGFT, the said Authority being satisfied has granted the license in terms of which import has been made by the importer/assessee. The benefit of TPS is sought to be denied since, according to the Customs, the conditions of the Notification remained not satisfied. The fact, however, remains that the goods are covered under valid authorization issued under the TPS; the benefit of the above notification cannot be denied so long as the authorization remains valid, which is beyond the scope of the notification/s. The option therefore, available to the Customs authorities was perhaps to take up the issue with the DGFT for cancellation of the authorization issued under the scheme in question. In fact, the lower authority has also observed these facts which are clearly undisputed and the same is also the correct position of law. In the case on hand, the Adjudicating authority has specifically observed that there were no such violations, the assessee had imported plastic granules which was one of the inputs required for the manufacturer of PP bags which were used as inner packing material for export of Rice. Hence, it is held by the Original Authority that the plastic granules have direct nexus with Rice. The Target Plus Scheme was formulated in Chapter 3 of the FTP for 2004-09; the Scheme came to be discontinued in 2006. Paragraph 3.7.1 of the same provides that the object of the scheme was to accelerate growth in exports by rewarding star export houses who have achieved a quantum growth in exports. Para 3.7.6 of the FTP permitted the utilization of the duty credit by effecting imports. The TPS is thus an additional incentive given to accelerate the growth of exports, FTP is referable to the provisions of Section 4 and 5 of the FTDR. From a cumulative reading of both paras of FTP, the reference ‘product groups’ has been liberally interpreted by the constitutional courts in the case of in Union of India Vs Indian Exporters Grievance Forum [2013 (8) TMI 131 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and in Essel Mining & Industries Ltd. Vs Union of India [2012 (5) TMI 328 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]. The same however, would cover a situation, like the present case on hand, is to be considered. PP granules were imported which were converted into plastic bags/inner layers of bags that were claimed to have been used as a ‘packing material’ for Rice that was exported. So, ‘a pound of flesh’ could never be without ‘a drop of blood’ and hence, there is a possibility that the PP granules would belong to the genus, if not the species. Based on an overall analysis, the Original Authority has come to the conclusion that the twin conditions have been fulfilled by the assessee and that there was no material on record suggesting the violation of those twin conditions. Even in the present case, the Revenue has not placed any supporting evidence in this regard, other than trying to build their case on mere arguments. Conclusion - i) The Commissioner is correct in dropping the proceedings against the respondent. ii) The imported plastic granules used for manufacturing packing materials have a broad nexus with the exported rice and spices. iii) The Customs Department cannot independently deny TPS benefits; the DGFT is the competent authority for eligibility and enforcement. iv) The 'actual user condition' includes use by job workers, and no violation of Customs notifications was established. Appeal dismissed. Issues Presented and ConsideredThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal include:1. Whether the Commissioner of Customs was correct in dropping the proceedings against the respondent who claimed exemption from Customs Duty on imported plastic granules under the Target Plus Scheme (TPS) when the imported goods did not have a direct nexus with the exported products (rice and spices).2. Whether the imported plastic granules used for manufacturing packaging materials (plastic bags) for exported rice and spices could be considered as inputs having a 'broad nexus' with the exported goods under the relevant provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) and Customs Notifications.3. Whether the Customs Department could challenge the eligibility of the respondent for TPS benefits, which is a scheme administered by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), or whether such authority exclusively rests with the DGFT.4. The interpretation and applicability of paragraph 3.2.5 of the Handbook of Procedures (HBP), the concept of 'broad nexus' between imported inputs and exported products, and the impact of amendments and judicial pronouncements on this interpretation.5. The scope and meaning of 'use' and 'actual user condition' in relation to imported inputs sent to job workers for processing before export.Issue-wise Detailed AnalysisIssue 1: Validity of the Commissioner's Order Dropping ProceedingsLegal Framework and Precedents: The Commissioner's order relied on the scope of the 'actual user condition' under Customs law and the TPS notifications (No. 32/2005-Cus. and No. 73/2006-Cus.), which exempted duty on imports made under TPS licenses. The Commissioner found that the imported plastic granules were sent to job workers for conversion into plastic bags used for packing exported rice and spices and that there was no evidence of sale of granules as such before conversion.Relevant precedents include the Bombay High Court decision in Essel Mining & Industries Ltd., which clarified that the 'broad nexus' requirement under paragraph 3.2.5 of the FTP Handbook does not mandate physical incorporation of imported goods into exported products. The Tribunal's decisions in Gimpex Ltd. and MMTC Ltd. further supported a liberal interpretation of 'broad nexus' and emphasized the role of DGFT as the competent authority for TPS administration.Court's Reasoning and Application: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's finding that the imported granules were used by the importer or their job workers for manufacturing packing materials necessary for export. The Tribunal found no evidence of violation or unauthorized sale of imported goods and held that the Commissioner correctly dropped the proceedings.Treatment of Arguments: The Revenue contended that the imported plastic granules had no nexus with the exported rice and spices and that the licensing conditions under the TPS and Customs notifications were violated, especially since the name of the supporting manufacturer/job worker was not endorsed on the license. The Tribunal rejected these contentions, noting the absence of evidence and reliance on DGFT's authorization.Conclusion: The Commissioner's order dropping the show cause notice was held to be legally sound and factually justified.Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Broad Nexus' and Use of Imported InputsLegal Framework and Precedents: Paragraph 3.2.5 of the HBP (pre-amendment) defined 'broad nexus' as goods imported with reference to any of the product groups of the exported goods within the overall value of the entitlement certificate. The public notice dated 21.06.2007, which deleted this definition, was quashed by the Delhi High Court, restoring the original definition.Judicial pronouncements from the Bombay and Delhi High Courts and various Tribunal benches clarified that:The imported goods under TPS need not be physically incorporated into the exported goods.The 'broad nexus' can be with any product group of the exported goods, not necessarily the specific exported item.Packaging materials or inputs used in packing exported goods can satisfy the nexus requirement.The imported goods must be for the importer's own use or that of a supporting manufacturer/job worker.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the exported goods are rice and spices (food product group), while the imported plastic granules belong to a different product group. However, since the granules were converted into plastic bags used as packing materials for export, a broad nexus existed. The Tribunal accepted the reasoning that packaging materials, though not the exported goods themselves, are integrally linked and thus satisfy the nexus requirement.Application of Law to Facts: The imported plastic granules were inputs for manufacturing packing materials used in the export of rice and spices. The Tribunal found that the use of job workers to convert granules into bags did not violate TPS conditions or Customs notifications.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument that the imported goods had no nexus with the exported products was rejected based on the accepted interpretation of 'broad nexus' and the evidence of use in packing exported goods.Conclusion: The imported plastic granules satisfy the 'broad nexus' requirement under paragraph 3.2.5 of the HBP and related FTP provisions.Issue 3: Authority of Customs vs. DGFT in Granting and Challenging TPS BenefitsLegal Framework: The TPS is a scheme formulated and administered by the DGFT under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Customs Act, 1962 governs Customs duty and notifications. Both statutes operate in distinct spheres.Court's Reasoning: The Tribunal held that the DGFT is the competent authority to grant, amend, or cancel TPS licenses and to determine eligibility. Customs authorities cannot independently deny TPS benefits based on their interpretation of the scheme conditions or notifications. Customs can only act on valid authorizations issued by DGFT. If Customs has concerns about compliance, the proper recourse is to approach DGFT for cancellation of the license.Application to Facts: The respondent had a valid TPS authorization from DGFT for importing plastic granules. The Customs Department's attempt to deny exemption was beyond its jurisdiction. The Commissioner's order reflected this understanding.Competing Arguments: Revenue argued that Customs Notifications imposed conditions that were not met. The Tribunal rejected this, emphasizing the primacy of DGFT's scheme administration.Conclusion: Customs authorities cannot override DGFT's grant of TPS benefits; challenges to eligibility must be addressed by DGFT.Issue 4: Scope of 'Use' and 'Actual User Condition' in TPS and Customs NotificationsLegal Framework: The 'actual user condition' under Customs notifications requires that imported goods be used by the importer or supporting manufacturer. The DGFT circulars and FTP provisions clarify that use includes processing by job workers.Court's Reasoning and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the imported granules were sent to job workers for conversion into plastic bags used as packing materials for exported rice and spices. The Customs notifications do not prohibit such processing by job workers. The Commissioner found no evidence that the granules were sold as such before conversion, satisfying the 'actual user' condition.Application of Law to Facts: Use by job workers was accepted as 'use' by the importer under the scheme. The imported plastic granules were inputs utilized in the export process.Competing Arguments: Revenue contended that the absence of endorsement of job workers on the license and the multiple applications of granules violated the scheme. The Tribunal found no material to support these contentions.Conclusion: The use of imported inputs through job workers satisfies the 'actual user' condition under the TPS and Customs notifications.Significant Holdings'Paragraph 3.2.5 of the Handbook of Procedures, as it stood prior to its amendment by Public Notice dated 21.06.2007, states that goods allowed to be imported under the Target Plus Scheme shall have a broad nexus with the products exported, meaning goods imported with reference to any of the product groups of the exported goods within the overall value of the entitlement certificate.''The Customs Department cannot find fault with the policies prescribed by the DGFT. The benefit of the Customs notification cannot be denied so long as the authorization under the Target Plus Scheme remains valid. The proper course is for Customs to approach DGFT for cancellation of the authorization if conditions are not met.''The 'actual user condition' does not contemplate compulsory physical incorporation of imported inputs into exported products nor prohibit processing of imported goods by job workers. Use by job workers is recognized as use by the importer under the scheme.''Packaging materials manufactured from imported inputs and used for packing exported goods satisfy the 'broad nexus' requirement under the FTP and TPS.''The 'broad nexus' requirement under paragraph 3.2.5 and paragraph 3.7.6 of the FTP must be interpreted liberally to cover inputs related to any product group of the exported goods, not restricted to the exact exported item.'Final determinations:The Commissioner was correct in dropping the proceedings against the respondent.The imported plastic granules used for manufacturing packing materials have a broad nexus with the exported rice and spices.The Customs Department cannot independently deny TPS benefits; the DGFT is the competent authority for eligibility and enforcement.The 'actual user condition' includes use by job workers, and no violation of Customs notifications was established.The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.