1985 (10) TMI 181

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1981 was rejected. 2.  The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that the M/s. Madura Coats Ltd. Bangalore, (the appellants before us) imported at the port of Madras two consignments of Nylon Filament Yarn from the U.S.A. and filed two bills of entry for clearance of the goods. It was represented by the appellants that the goods would be used in the manufacture of belting ducks which would be ultimately used in the manufacture of belting for machinery. The appellants, therefore, claimed the benefit of customs Notification No. 389/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976. The Assistant Collector, however, denied the benefit of the notification on the ground that the appellants were licensed to manufacture inter alia belting ducks but not finished be....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....  Smt. Dolly Saxena, the learned Senior Departmental Representative, defended the orders of the lower authorities for the reasons stated therein. She further submitted that the appellants had not produced end-use certificates. 5.  We have considered the submissions of both sides. Customs Notification No. 389, dated 2-8-1976 exempts yarn of man-made fibres, falling under Heading Nos. 51.01/03 and 56.05/06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act (there is no dispute about the classification of the subject imported yarn), when imported into India for the manufacture of belting for machinery from basic customs duty in excess of 40% ad valorem. The exemption is subject to execution of a bond binding the importer to pay the ....