Project import benefit upheld for microfilming equipment despite delayed registration and customs-caused delay in clearance.

Project import benefit could not be denied merely because contract registration was completed after clearance of the imported goods where the importer had taken the required steps and the delay was attributable to customs authorities; clearance under protest did not forfeit the benefit. Microfilming equipment intended for a data-processing and microfilm retrieval and printing project was treated as part of a qualifying industrial plant, so it was eligible for concessional assessment as project import under Heading 84.66(1). The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of project import could be denied on the ground that the contract was registered after clearance of the imported goods. (ii) Whether the imported microfilming equipment was eligible for concessional assessment as a project import under Heading 84.66(1).

Issue (i): Whether the benefit of project import could be denied on the ground that the contract was registered after clearance of the imported goods.

Analysis: The appellants had applied for registration under the Project Import regime and had taken the steps required under the applicable regulations. The delay in registration was attributable to the customs authorities, while the goods had already arrived and were liable to demurrage and damage. On these facts, clearance under protest could not be used to deprive the appellants of the project import benefit.

Conclusion: The objection based on prior registration was rejected in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported microfilming equipment was eligible for concessional assessment as a project import under Heading 84.66(1).

Analysis: The goods were intended for a unit engaged in data processing and allied microfilming activities, and the imported equipment was for a specific project involving processing, retrieval and printing of microfilms. The Tribunal applied the principle that such activities can constitute an industrial plant and relied on earlier decisions treating similar processing units as eligible for project import classification.

Conclusion: The goods were held entitled to concessional assessment as project import under Heading 84.66(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, resulting in grant of the project import benefit with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported equipment is for a qualifying industrial plant and the importer has complied with the registration requirements, project import benefit cannot be denied merely because formal registration was delayed due to departmental inaction.

---