Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2001 (7) TMI AT This
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification 109/94 for exemption of duty on imported goods. 2. Whether raw materials for laying athletic tracks qualify for exemption under Heading 95.06. 3. Compliance with conditions of the notification for exemption. 4. Relevance of the scheme of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports in interpreting the notification. 5. Validity of certificates provided for exemption. 6. Classification of imported goods under Heading 95.06. 7. Availability of exemption for raw materials required for making tracks. 8. Historical practice of granting exemption to raw materials. 9. Consideration of financial hardship in waiver of deposit. 1. Interpretation of Notification 109/94: The case involved an application for waiver of deposit demanded from the Punjab State Sports Council for importing polyurethane granules and powder for athletic tracks. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Notification 109/94, which exempts synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces under Heading 95.06 from duty when imported under specific conditions. 2. Classification of Raw Materials: The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled that the imported goods were raw materials for making tracks, not artificial surfaces, and thus ineligible for exemption under Heading 95.06. The appellant argued that the scheme of the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports supported the installation of tracks using raw materials, indicating compliance with the notification. 3. Compliance with Notification Conditions: The departmental representative contended that the notification only exempted tracks under Heading 95.06, not raw materials. The exemption required a certificate recommending grant of exemption for specific goods, which the imported materials did not qualify for under the notification. 4. Scheme Interpretation and Classification: The Tribunal found that while the scheme supported both pre-fabricated and in situ tracks, the notification specifically exempted tracks under Heading 95.06. The imported polyurethane was classified under Heading 40.05, not 95.06, supporting the departmental representative's argument. 5. Validity of Certificates: The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the certificates provided, emphasizing that the import was not classifiable under Heading 95.06 as required for exemption. 6. Exemption for Raw Materials: The Tribunal clarified that the notification did not exempt raw materials for laying tracks, as evidenced by a later notification specifically exempting such materials. Strict construction of the original notification precluded exemption for raw materials. 7. Historical Practice and Financial Hardship: The Tribunal dismissed reliance on past exemptions granted for raw materials, emphasizing the lack of evidence for continuous practice. Considering the applicant's status as a public sector body, a reduced deposit was deemed appropriate due to the absence of specific financial hardship claims. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption for the imported raw materials, emphasizing strict interpretation of the notification's conditions and classification requirements under Heading 95.06.
|