TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5.The Appellant had later on 23.03.2012applied for registration of theProject Contract, under which the said goods were claimed to have been imported, with the Customs department, in order to avail the benefit under Project Import Regulations,1986. The said Contract had been registered by the Customs Department on 29.03.2012 provisionally, bearing No. F.No.S-37C(P)-Proj-09/2012A(6) subject to verification of the essentiality certificate. The said essentiality certificate was later issued by the Ministry of Fertilizers on 30.03.2012 which confirmed that the items certified through various letters in favour of M/s Matrix stands goods for customs clearance by M/s EPIL. Subsequently, the Appellant had filed Ex-Bond Bills of Entry, claiming classification under Chapter Sub-Heading 98.01 & benefit of concessional rate of duty, as applicable to such project imports under the Project import regulations, 1986. 2.1 A Show Cause Cum Demand Notice was issued to the Appellant proposing denial of benefit under theProject Import Regulations,1986 and classification of the imported goods under Chapter Sub-Heading 98.01, recovery of differential duty of Rs. 39,59,43,836/- and also denial of the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n F.No.S-37C(P)Project-21/2011A(6). 3.2. It is contended by the ld. Sr. advocate that subsequently it had been agreed between the Appellant and M/s. Matrix that the off shore supply meant for the said Fertilizers Project, would be cleared in the name of the Appellant as an importer instead of high sea sale to M/s Matrix. Thus, it became necessary/appropriate for the Appellant to get the Project registered in their name with the Kolkata Customs House so as to avail the benefit of project import assessment. Accordingly, a request was made by M/s. Matrix to the Customs authorities on 07.03.2012 To substitute their name with that of the Appellant inthe project Contract registered; the Appellant had also requested for transfer of said contract in their favour registered in the name of M/s. Matrix. However, it was informed by the department that there is no provision for transfer of Registration under the Project Import Regulations, 1986, and hence their request was rejected. Consequently, a request was madefor cancellation of the Registration standing in the name M/s Matrix and issue ofa fresh application inthe name of the Appellant on 23.03.12. The Customs Authorities issued a new r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o-bond bills of entry, the clearance for home-consumption of the said goods were effected only after filing the ex-bond bills of entry. 3.6. It is his submission that there is a marked difference between the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 and the present provisions of Project Import Regulations, 1986. Under the earlier provisions read with Customs Tariff Heading 84.66 of CTA, 1975 it is necessarythat such contract or contracts has or have been registered before any order is made by the proper Officer of Customs permitting the clearance for home-consumption or depositing any warehoused items. He has submitted that the legislature has consciously removed the expression, to deposit items in a warehouse . In other words, under the present Project import regulations, 1986 the Contract has to be registered before clearance of the goods for home-consumption; there is no necessity for the contract to be registered before the items are warehoused. 3.7. The ld. Sr. Advocate submitted that the adjudicating authority in denying the benefit of Project import assessment has mainly relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofMihir Textil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....most final in relation to the classification of the goods, is not supported by any provisions of law. The ld. Sr. Advocate has also submitted that in respect of the warehoused goods, it has been categorically held that at the time of clearance of the goods for home-consumption under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods have to be re-assessed. Such re-assessment is also an assessment under Section 2(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. In support, he has referred to the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Dinesh Mills Ltd. vs. CC, 2007(220)ELT 246 (Tri.-Ahmd.). It is his contention that when the goods have to be assessed or re-assessed to duty, it cannot be said that the re-assessment be limited to the same Tariff Heading, under which the goods were earlier assessed, and it is only for the purpose of checking the rate of duty on account of any change made therein and nothing beyond it. Thus, the Tariff Heading could certainly be revised in case the necessity arises in this regard, at the time of clearance of ex-bond goods from a warehouse. 3.10. Further, it is his submission that at the time of filing eleven into-bond bills of entry, the same were assessed on self-assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 2(23) and 2(27) of Customs Act,1962 their Lordships had observed that the import of goods into India would commence when the same cross into territorial waters, but it is completed, when the goods become part of the mass of the goods within the country.. In the case of goods which are in the warehouse the Customs barrier would be crossed when they are sought to be taken out of the Customs control and brought to mix with the mass of goods in the country. 3.13. The ld. Sr. Advocate further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority has erred in denying the benefit of project assessment to the goods to be imported under the said registered contract without any valid reasons.The said observation of the ld. Commissioner is erroneous inasmuch as while denying the benefit of project assessment to the 11 consignments, it is reasoned that the imports were made prior to registration of the contract under PIR, 1986 i.e before 29th March 2012. Therefore, the future imports that would be effected under the said contract registered on 29th of March 2012, cannot be denied to the benefit of project import assessment. 3.14. The ld. Sr. Advocate further submitted that through Right to I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods for home-consumption in respect of assessment of the goods on ex-bond bill of entry, becomes irrelevant. It is his contention that once the conditions of registration under the Project Import Regulations, have not been complied with, the entire chain of imports under the Project Import gets out of the purview of Customs Tariff Heading 98.01 and no such consignment would be entitled to avail the benefit, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd s case(supra). 4.3 In his rejoinder, the ld. Sr. Advocate has submitted that mixing of the imported goods with the land-mass cannot be construed as completion of the process of import of the goods into India, after crossing the territorial waters and entering into India; on the contrary when the goods are cleared from the Customs barrier, mixes with the mass of the goods for consumption, then only the act of import is said to be complete and the taxable event under the Customs Act occurs. 5.Heard both sides at length and perused the records. The nerve chord of the dispute centers around the eligibility of the eleven consignment of goods, imported under a project contract between the Appellant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1976.] In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), read with the proviso to the entry in Column 2 against Item 72A (i) of the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 (32 of 1934), the Central Board of Excise and Customs, hereby makes the following regulations, namely: 1. Short title and commencement (1) These regulations may be called the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965. (2) They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from the 11th September, 1965. 2. Application. These regulations shall apply to every contract referred to in sub-heading No. (i) of. Heading No. 84.66 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. 1975 (51 of 1975). 3. Registration of contract. (1) Every importer claiming assess-, ment of the articles falling under sub-heading No. (i) or sub-heading No. (ii) of the said HeadingNo.84.66 on the importation shall apply in writing to the proper officer of Customs at the port where the goods are to be imported for registration of the contract or contracts, as the case may be: "84.66 (i) (ii) "Provided these are imported (whether in one or in more tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....98.01, on or before their importation shall apply in writing to the proper officer at the port where the goods are to be imported or where the duty is to be paid for registration of the contract or contracts, as the case may be : 5.4. On a simple reading of the aforesaid provisions under both the Regulations in juxtaposition, it is clear that under the old regulations, read with erstwhile Tariff entry 84.66,the contract should be registered before permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption by the Customs officer or before depositing the items in a warehouse; however under the new Regulation, the condition of deposit in warehouse is conspicuously absent. It is the argument of the appellant that the legislator had consciously deleted the said condition, hence the only condition now remains is that the contract should be registered before permitting the clearance of imported goods for home consumption. 5.5. Needless to emphasize in the PIR,1986, the eligibility to the benefit is clearly laid down under Regulation (4) and the procedure for claiming such benefit under Regulation (5) of the said Regulations. In clause (i) of Regulation (4) it is made clear that such con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sional rate of Duty of Customs under Customs Tariff Sub-Heading9801.00 and they are eligible to Project Import Assessment. After analyzing the Regulations and referring to the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mihir Textiles Case and in Garden Silk Mills case(supra) observed at para 4 as: 4. On a careful consideration and perusal of the provisions of Chapter 98 of Customs Tariff Act read with Regulation 4 & 5 of the Project Import Regulations, it is cleared that the project can be registered before the goods are cleared for the home consumption. In the case of Mihir Textile Ltd., the Apex Court had examined the provisions as under chapter heading 84.66 which clearly laid down that the registration of contract has to be done before clearance of goods for home consumption or before the deposit in the warehouse. This restriction is absent in Regulation 4 & 5 of the present Regulations and in Chapter Heading 98.01. The Regulation 4 specifically omits a reference to the condition regarding registration being done before depositing in a warehouse and only states that it has to be done before clearance for home consumption. Therefore, both the authorities have not carefully g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....over Rs. 52 lakhs. On 13.04.1983, the appellant had applied to the Collector of Customs for granting registration of the contract as envisaged in Entry84.66 of Customs Tariff and got the registration on 22.4.1983. Consequently, the appellant had filed a refund application on the ground that they were liable to pay Customs Duty only at the concessional rate shown in the aforesaid Entry. The claim for refund was rejected by the Authorities and confirmed by the Tribunal. After discussing the provisions, as was in existence during the relevant point of time, and the conditions prescribed under Entry No.84.66, Their Lordships at para 7 observed as follows:- "7. The proviso prescribes, principally, three conditions to be satisfied for entitlement of the concessional rate shown in the aforesaid entry. They are - (1) Goods should have been imported against a specified contract registered with the appropriate Customs House; (2) Such registration should have been made in the manner prescribed by the regulations; (3) Registration of the contract should have been obtained before the order (granting permission for clearance of the goods) was passed. Unless all the three conditions are satisf....