https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167451 A project import contract consciously de-registered at the importer's request could not be revived for availing project import concession, because no documentary basis showed that the de-registration was compelled by customs advice. The absence of an express statutory bar did not justify mechanical re-registration after a voluntary de-registration. Concessional duty on spare parts and accessories under Heading 84.66(ii) was also unavailable, since that benefit applied only where the goods were imported under a contract registered under the relevant project import provision and the mandatory registration condition was not met. The appeal therefore failed, and the denial of concessional treatment was upheld. en-us Fri, 28 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:22:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167451 A project import contract consciously de-registered at the importer's request could not be revived for availing project import concession, because no documentary basis showed that the de-registration was compelled by customs advice. The absence of an express statutory bar did not justify mechanical re-registration after a voluntary de-registration. Concessional duty on spare parts and accessories under Heading 84.66(ii) was also unavailable, since that benefit applied only where the goods were imported under a contract registered under the relevant project import provision and the mandatory registration condition was not met. The appeal therefore failed, and the denial of concessional treatment was upheld. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 28 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167451