Project import eligibility survives without licence endorsement where the import is otherwise eligible and supported by record evidence.

Absence of a project-import endorsement on the import licence did not, by itself, bar registration of the contract or concessional assessment under Heading 84.66 where the import was otherwise eligible. The import was for initial establishment of a coffee curing unit, had been recommended by the Coffee Board as sponsoring authority, and the evidence supported project-import treatment. The Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 were held not to require a DGTD industrial licence where the industry was not scheduled and DGTD had no role. The revenue conditions relied upon were therefore not a bar to project-import registration or benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absence of an endorsement on the import licence or an industrial licence barred registration of the contract and denial of project import benefits under Heading 84.66.

Analysis: The record showed that the import was for initial establishment of a coffee curing unit and had been recommended by the Coffee Board as the sponsoring authority. The Tribunal held that the earlier view relied on by the lower appellate authority was not mere obiter, and that the absence of a project-import endorsement on the import licence did not by itself bar the benefit if the import was otherwise eligible. It further held that the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 did not require a DGTD industrial licence in a case where the industry was not a scheduled industry and DGTD had no role. The evidence on record was sufficient to support project-import treatment.

Conclusion: The conditions relied upon by the revenue were not a bar to project-import registration or concessional assessment, and the appeal failed.

---