TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (2) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pted from the whole of customs and additional duties, goods specified in List 12 appended to that notification required in connection with petroleum operations undertaken under specified contracts under new export licence policy (NELP). The importer produced an Essentiality Certificate from a duly authorized officer of the Director General of Hydro Carbon in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, certifying that the imported goods were required for such petroleum operations. On physical examination of the goods imported under above Bill of Entry, several other goods in addition to the declared lithium batteries were found to have been imported. These were goods such as transponders, cables, battery pack, etc. The goods imported did not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder bond). She imposed penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on AMC under Section 112(a) of the Act. An amount of Rs. 5,27,77,105/- already paid was appropriated towards the duty demand and another amount of Rs. 22,64,701 already paid was adjusted towards fine and penalty. 3. We have heard the learned Sr. Counsel for the appellants and the learned SDR for the respondent. 4. The appellants have explained that shipping documents had been erroneously prepared by the overseas principals of the importer by oversight. There was no deliberate mis-declaration of description of the goods imported. The order of the confiscation was liable to be set aside as the mis-declaration was occasioned by inadvertent error. The appellants cited several case l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellants have placed on record the requisite essentiality certificate for import of the goods under production sharing contract under NELP between the Government and, M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. and M/s. Niko Resources who are the contractors for execution of which the impugned goods were imported. As per the essentiality certificate dated 16-10-2007, as amended on 1-4-2008, all the impugned goods are covered by the essentiality certificate issued as prescribed. As rightly argued by the appellants, the impugned goods are eligible for the exemption and the condition for the exemption could not be so construed as to deny the benefit. In C.C., Mumbai v. Tullow India Operations Ltd. reported in 2005 (189) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.), the Apex Court obse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iality certificate was produced belatedly. 5.2 In Jagson International Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 553 (Tri.-Del.) relied on by the appellants, this Tribunal held that essentiality certificate though submitted by the appellants not at the time of clearance of the goods as required under Notification No. 196/89-Cus., dated 30-6-89 but much later and after rescission of the said notification, the exemption still had to be allowed as the essentiality certificate was issued with reference to the goods cleared by the Customs under relevant Bill of Entry No. 14315 dated 28-4-93. The Tribunal held : "9.1 The "essentiality certificate" has to be treated as a proof of the fact that the importer had fulfilled th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l agents. We hold that the impugned goods are entitled to the benefit under entry Sl. No. 217 of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. Accordingly, we vacate the impugned demand arising on account of denial of the said exemption. 7. The Commissioner held that the mis declaration of description, quality and value of the goods by the importer was occasioned by the confusion among the employees of AMC at BOYS Yard in Holland and in Secunderabad. The Commissioner has therefore, found that mis-declaration occurred was not intentional. In this connection, we find that the following observations of this Tribunal in the case of Kirti Sales Corpn. v. Commissioner of Customs, Faridabad [2008 (232) E.L.T. 151 (Tri. - Del.)] are relevant : "6.......