1992 (1) TMI 227 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Registration of Contract for Coffee Seed Processing Machines

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi upheld the registration of a contract under Project Import Regulations in a case involving the importation of ... Project Import Issues:1. Registration of contract under Project Import Regulations.2. Interpretation of Project Import Regulations and Handbook of Import Trade.3. Requirement of industrial license for project imports.4. Sponsorship authority's role in project imports.5. Applicability of Project Import Regulations in absence of industrial license.The judgment pertains to an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi regarding the registration of a contract under Project Import Regulations. The respondents imported machines for processing coffee seeds and sought registration under T.H. 84.66 of CTA 1975. The original assessment authority denied registration due to the absence of Project Import endorsement on the ITC license. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondents, emphasizing that the Customs authority has the discretion to allow concessional duty based on the recommendation of the sponsoring authority, in this case, the Coffee Board of India. The lower appellate authority relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case to support its decision.The appellant-Collector raised grounds asserting that the respondents failed to produce an industrial license and necessary documentary evidence as per Project Import Regulations. The Collector argued that the Tribunal's previous decision was not binding as it pertained to modernization, and the main issue was the conflict between Project Import Regulations and Import Trade Handbook. The Collector contended that precedence should be given to Project Import Regulations in case of conflict.The respondents, on the other hand, reiterated the Collector (Appeals) observations and provided evidence of sponsorship by the Coffee Board for establishing a new coffee curing plant. They argued that since coffee curing is not a scheduled industry under IDRA, no industrial license was required. The respondents cited previous Tribunal decisions to support their stance.Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal disagreed with the appellant-Collector's arguments. They emphasized that the absence of endorsement on the ITC license was not an 'obiter dicta' as claimed by the Collector. The Tribunal highlighted that the Project Import Regulations did not mandate an industrial license from DGTD in cases where it was not applicable, such as in the coffee industry. The Tribunal found merit in the respondents' case, noting the recommendation by the Coffee Board as the sponsoring authority for the project import. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the registration of the contract under Project Import Regulations.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the interpretation of Project Import Regulations, the role of sponsoring authorities, and the applicability of industrial licenses in project imports, providing a comprehensive analysis to resolve the issues raised in the appeal.