Simultaneous customs exemption denied for Burmese wood where full exemption could not coexist with concessional duty benefits

Imported Burmese-origin wood and timber were examined for whether they could simultaneously receive the total customs exemption under Notification No. 280/76-Cus., the concessional basic duty and additional duty exemption under Notification No. 62/85-Cus., and the auxiliary duty exemption under Notification No. 95/85-Cus. The notifications were read together to mean that the exemptions from additional duty and auxiliary duty applied only where the goods were assessed at 10% basic customs duty under Notification No. 62/85-Cus. Goods already enjoying complete exemption under Notification No. 280/76-Cus. could not also claim the further benefits under the other notifications, so the broader simultaneous claim was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported wood/timber of Burmese origin was entitled to simultaneous benefit of Notification No. 280/76-Cus., Notification No. 62/85-Cus. and Notification No. 95/85-Cus., so as to obtain full exemption from basic customs duty as well as exemption from additional duty and auxiliary duty.

Analysis: Notification No. 280/76-Cus. granted total exemption to specified goods of Burmese origin, including wood and timber. Notification No. 62/85-Cus. allowed a concessional basic customs duty of 10% ad valorem on specified wood products and also exempted the additional duty leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Notification No. 95/85-Cus. granted exemption from auxiliary duty only to goods covered by the notifications listed in its Schedule, and its benefit was subject to the conditions attached to those notifications. On a combined reading, the exemption from additional duty and auxiliary duty was available only where the goods were assessed to basic customs duty at 10% under Notification No. 62/85-Cus. The goods could not simultaneously take complete exemption under Notification No. 280/76-Cus. and also claim the further exemptions under the other two notifications.

Conclusion: The claim for simultaneous benefit of all three notifications was rejected and the exemption was confined by the conditions of Notification No. 62/85-Cus.; the appeals were therefore decided against the assessee.

---