Project import exemption for toll system goods upheld; sub-contractor status proved through project records and post-completion transfer was not prohibited disposal.

Exemption under Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. was available for goods used in a toll management system in a national highway project because the importer was established as a sub-contractor by reading the concession agreement, project documents, NHAI communications and certification together, satisfying Condition 9(a)(iii). Condition 9(b) was also met since transfer of the equipment after project completion did not amount to prohibited disposal. As the exemption conditions were complied with, the foundation for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 failed and penalties could not survive. The impugned order was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 was available to the imported goods used for the toll management system in the national highway projects; (ii) whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; (iii) whether penalties were imposable on the appellants.

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of Sl. No. 368 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 was available to the imported goods used for the toll management system in the national highway projects?

Analysis: The exemption covered goods specified in List 16 required for construction of roads, subject to Condition 9. The relevant enquiry was whether the importer fell within Condition 9(a)(iii) as a person named as a sub-contractor in the contract referred to in Condition 9(a)(ii). Reading the concession agreements, the toll management system agreement, the communications with NHAI, and the certification issued by NHAI together, the appointment of the importer as a sub-contractor for the project was established even though its name did not appear in the original concession agreement. The condition was held to be satisfied on a combined and purposive reading of the project documents. Condition 9(b) was also held to be complied with because transfer of the equipment after completion of the project did not amount to a prohibited disposal within the meaning of the notification.

Conclusion: The benefit of the exemption notification was available to the imported goods, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962?

Analysis: Confiscation depended on a breach of the exemption conditions. Since the imported goods were found to have satisfied the notification conditions and were used in the project for which duty-free import was allowed, the foundation for confiscation failed.

Conclusion: The goods were not liable to confiscation, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalties were imposable on the appellants?

Analysis: Penalty provisions could not survive once the exemption was held admissible and no actionable contravention of the notification conditions remained. The finding on compliance also displaced the basis for penal action.

Conclusion: Penalties were not imposable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief, as the exemption claim was upheld and the connected confiscation and penalty demands did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a project exemption notification permits imports by a named sub-contractor, the sub-contractor status may be established from the project agreements and contemporaneous project records read together, and post-completion transfer of equipment after use in the project does not by itself constitute prohibited disposal defeating the exemption.

---