1987 (8) TMI 345

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....in the public sector. They are engaged in manufacture and sale of telecommunication equipment. They have a Research and Development Unit/Lab, as a part of their undertaking. They imported certain articles which, they claimed, were being used in the said R & D Unit. The dispute in these appeals is whether they were entitled to import the said articles free of customs duty under exemption Notification No. 70/81-Customs, dated 26-3-1981. 3. We had an occasion earlier to deal with the same issue in another batch of appeals filed by the same appellants. Our earlier order reported at (1987) 30 E.L.T. 523 (Tribunal). In the said order, we had formulated the following three issues for our consideration :- (1) Whether the R & D Unit of the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....es only acted as a conduit for import of goods meant for their R & D Unit. Their internal working was explained as follows. The Chief Engineer (Research) of the R & D Unit prepared a list of the goods required to be imported. The same officer also acted in a dual capacity as the Purchase Officer of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. In the said capacity as the Purchase Officer, he placed an indent on the foreign supplier. The indent was, no doubt, placed in the name of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries and, consequently, the foreign supplier issued the invoice also in the name of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. However, the order number mentioned in the import invoice had the prefix "R" which indicated that the order was for research. In so....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... question as to who was the importer for the subject consignments should be decided strictly in accordance with the statutory definition of Section 2(26) read with Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. He supported the earlier conclusion of the Bench that the imports were not by a Research Institution but by a commercial undertaking. 7. Before proceeding with the discussion, it would be worthwhile noticing our earlier conclusions on this point. We reproduce below paragraph 8 of our earlier order:               *                       *    &nbsp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....case of the appellants. Since the indent on the foreign supplier was placed by M/s. I.T.I., since the foreign supplier made out the import invoice in the name of M/s. I.T.I. and since M/s. I.T.I. filed the customs bills of entry and cleared the goods, it was M/s. I.T.I. who was the importer and not their R & D Unit. Under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, the importer of the goods has to file the bill of entry and to subscribe to the statutory declaration therein. Unless in a particular case the goods have been lawfully purchased by such importer on high sea sale basis, it also follows that the import invoice should be in the name of the importer. The import invoice has to be submitted alongwith the bill of entry. This is also a statutor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Chief Engineer (Research) was also working in the dual capacity of the Purchase Officer of M/s. Indian Telephone Industries. If the import invoices and the bill of entry had been made out in either the name of the Research Institution or in the joint name as indicated by us, it could have brought out that the importation was by the R & D Unit. But, as it is, the name of the R & D Unit does not figure in any statutory customs document. We, therefore, do not agree with the appellants' contention that the importation was by the R & D Unit and that M/s. I.T.I, acted only as a conduit. The position as on the record is that the importations were by M/s. I.T.I. only. 10. We do not agree with the appellants' pleading that in the formulation "....