2001 (7) TMI 1234 - Commissioner - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for NIL CVD under Notification No. 29/97.
2. Interpretation of "for the manufacture of" vs. "in the manufacture of".
3. Validity of the demand notice issued by the Customs Authorities.
4. Relevance of the DGFT's issuance of a zero-duty license.
5. Applicability of Supreme Court precedents cited by the appellant.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for NIL CVD under Notification No. 29/97:
The primary issue revolves around whether the imported machines qualify for NIL CVD under Notification No. 29/97, which exempts certain goods used in the manufacture of textile garments from additional customs duty. The Customs Authorities contended that the machines imported by the appellant (e.g., Automatic Fabric Reversing Machine, Tubular Fabric Inspection Machine) are used for processing/manufacturing fabrics and not directly in the manufacture of textile garments. Therefore, these machines are not entitled to the benefit of NIL CVD.

2. Interpretation of "for the manufacture of" vs. "in the manufacture of":
The appellant argued that the phrase "for the manufacture of" is broader than "in the manufacture of" or "for use directly in the manufacture of". They cited the Supreme Court's decision in Kudremukh Iron Ore Ltd. v. Collector of Customs to support this interpretation. However, the Customs Authorities maintained that the machines must be directly used in the manufacture of garments to qualify for the exemption. The judgment concluded that the impugned machines are used only in the processing of fabrics and not directly in garment manufacturing, thus not meeting the criteria for NIL CVD.

3. Validity of the demand notice issued by the Customs Authorities:
The Customs Authorities issued a demand notice for Rs. 39,41,353/- based on the assessment that the imported machines did not qualify for the NIL CVD exemption. The appellant contested this demand, arguing that the machines were essential for their garment manufacturing unit and should be covered under the EPCG scheme. The judgment upheld the demand notice, stating that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim that these machines were directly used in garment manufacturing.

4. Relevance of the DGFT's issuance of a zero-duty license:
The appellant contended that the DGFT had issued a zero-duty license for the imported machines, indicating their necessity for garment manufacturing. However, the judgment clarified that the Customs Authorities have the final say in interpreting the applicability of customs notifications. The DGFT's issuance of a license does not override the specific conditions outlined in Notification No. 29/97.

5. Applicability of Supreme Court precedents cited by the appellant:
The appellant relied on several Supreme Court decisions to argue their case, including Oblum Electrical Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs. The judgment found these precedents inapplicable, as the facts of the present case differed significantly. The imported machines were used for fabric processing, not garment manufacturing, making the cited cases irrelevant.

Conclusion:
The appeal was rejected, and the demand for additional customs duty was upheld. The judgment emphasized that the imported machines did not qualify for the NIL CVD exemption under Notification No. 29/97, as they were not directly used in the manufacture of textile garments. The appellant's arguments and cited precedents were found to be inapplicable or insufficient to overturn the Customs Authorities' decision.

← Previous Next →