TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (3) TMI 1623
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erwise. 2. Shri Vijay N. Thakkar, learned Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant M/s. Brightglow Ventures submits that the appellant is only high sea buyer of the Urea. The physical import was made by State Trading Enterprises, M/s. MMTC and the appellant have purchased Urea on high see sale basis, therefore the actual import was made by MMTC which is otherwise not permitted for other than State Trading Enterprises. Therefore, the purchase of Urea on high sea sale from MMTC cannot be restricted and for which no license is required. He placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Marico Industries Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs (EP) Mumbai - 2007 (209) ELT 403 (Tri. Mumbai). 2.1 Shri Saurabh Dixit, lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s State Trading Corporation at Mumbai only and the initial import should have been that of State Trading Corporation. However, there have been some procedural lacunae and the appellants have brought to our notice a letter written by Jt. DGFT dated 28-12-2005 addressed to DGFT stating that since the procedure for import for canalized items was not very clear prior to 30-6-2005, the appellant's case was a fit case for relaxation of policy. We further find that in any case, the Commissioner has allowed duty free clearance against AROs and has not demanded duty. We further note that in any case if M/s State Trading Corporation was required to pay duty, the same would have been reimbursable to them for supply against advance licences which are t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant became the importer and that under the Import Policy the STEs who have purchased the Urea from the foreign buyer can sell the same to the Indian buyer after clearance from Customs and that condition no. (xiv) of permission letter of Government of India, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, permission was granted to the Appellant only for domestic purchase of Urea from STE. 5. On carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and upon perusal of the case records, it emerges that the purchase from the foreign suppliers was made by STE viz. MMTC and Indian Potash Ltd and the goods were shipped by the foreign suppliers to MMTC/ Indian Potash Ltd and the Appellants have purchased the said goods on High Seas from the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d was permitted to be imported through State Trading Enterprise. 5.2 Since the import was made through MMTC/Indian Potash Ltd and was in accordance with Heading No. 3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy and the letters of the Government of India, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers, the import was in accordance with law and therefore the goods cannot be held to be liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962. Consequently, no penalty is imposable on the Appellants under Section 112 of the said Act 5.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not appreciating the permission granted by the Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers to the Appellant. The very opening sentence of the said letters/ Permission of the M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly permitted to purchase domestically from the STE, the letter would not have said that the Appellant is permitted to import through STE. The authorities below have mis-read the Conditions Nos. (v) and (xiv) of the Permission letter dated 15th May 2013 of the Government of India, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers and in inferring therefrom that High Seas purchase by Appellant from STE was not permitted as per the said conditions. The said conditions are not related to the Appellant's purchase from STE but are related to the purchases by the end users/ distributors from the Appellant. The meaning of the word "through" used in Heading No.3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy, itself show that when the ITC Policy talks of import through STE, it....