TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (4) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... grievance of the appellants herein is that such relief was not granted to them. 2.Appellant in one of these appeals had imported 12 Air Jet Looms along with their accessories and the goods arrived at the Bombay Port on 18-3-1983. Appellant got them cleared from the port on 31-3-1983 on payment of full duty which was a little above 52 lacs of rupees. On 13-4-1983 he applied to the Collector of Customs for granting registration of his contract with the buyer as envisaged in Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff and he got the registration on 22-4-1983. Then he filed a refund application on the premise that he is liable to pay customs duty only at the concessional rate shown in the aforesaid entry. But the claim for refund was rejected by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he premise that he was liable to pay customs duty only at the concessional rate prescribed under Entry No. 84.66 of the Customs Tariff. Assistant Collector of Customs rejected his refund claim on the main ground that he had not obtained registration of the import contract as "a Project Import". Appellant filed an appeal before Collector of Customs (Appeals) and when that was rejected he went before CEGAT in further appeal and that too was dismissed by the impugned order. 5.The contention adopted by both the appellants is identical, that as they had done their part in obtaining the registration of the import contract as a project import it was quite improper to have denied the benefit of the concessional relief prescribed in Entry No. 84.66....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 satisfied, no importer can claim, as a matter of right, the concessional relief provided in the entry. In these cases the contracts were not registered at all before the order of clearance was passed. That fact is not disputed before us and as the appellants were aware of position they chose to pay full customs duty for making the clearance. 8.Learned counsel contended that the importer is not to be blamed for non-compliance with the conditions prescribed in the entry because all what should have been done on their part had been done by them and what ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmalities necessary for granting registration. If any hasty steps were adopted on the application the resultant order would have been vulnerable to be assailed as an act done with undue haste. In this context learned Additional Solicitor General referred us to the following observations made by Jeevan Reddy. J in S.B. International Ltd. & others v. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade & Others - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 164 (S.C.) = 1996 (2) SCC 439 : "On receipt of the application, the authorities have to satisfy themselves about the correctness of the contents of the application. They also have to satisfy themselves that the application satisfies all the requirements of the scheme and the other applicable provisions of law, if any. In a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made a reference to the Privy Council decision in Montreal Street Railway Company v. Normandin - AIR 1917 PC 142 and the Federal Court decision in Biswanath Khemka v. Emperor - AIR 1945 FC 67. The Constitution Bench held that the provisions of Article 320(3) are not mandatory and non-compliance of those provisions does not afford any cause of action in a court of law. Privy Council in the above quoted decision has observed that the question whether provisions in a statute are directory or imperative depends upon the object of the statute and no general rule can be laid down. "When the provisions of the statute relate to the performance of a public duty and the case is such that to hold null and void acts done in neglect of this duty would ....