9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Interpretation of conditions (v) and (vii) of Notification 203/92-CUS regarding duty free import under Value Based Advance Licence. Whether the transferee can avail of duty free import if the original licence holder has not fulfilled export obligations. Analysis: The case involved a crucial issue regarding the eligibility of the transferee of a Value Based Advance Licence for duty free import, irrespective of whether the original licence holder fulfilled the export obligation and availed the credit. The primary question was whether non-compliance of condition (v) of Notification 203/92-CUS would prevent the transferee from benefiting from duty free import under condition (vii) of the same Notification. Condition (v) required the discharge of export obligations within a specified period without availing certain benefits, while condition (vii) allowed benefit transfer to a person other than the licensee upon endorsement of transferability by the Licensing Authority. The appellants' counsels argued based on precedents like the Goodluck Industries case and decisions of the Tribunal, emphasizing that the transferee should not be denied duty free import under the licence. On the other hand, the Revenue, represented by Shri A.K. Saxena, supported the impugned order, stating that a transferee cannot have superior rights to the original licence holder, especially when conditions for availing benefits under the Notification were not met. A recent Tribunal decision in the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Special Steels Ltd. case was referenced, highlighting that non-fulfillment of conditions under an exemption notification would disqualify imported goods from duty exemption. The Tribunal's observation emphasized that if the original licence holder was ineligible for duty exemption, the transferee could not claim such exemption either. This decision underscored that even if credit was reversed later, duty free import exemption could not be granted. Given the complexity and contentious nature of the issue, the Tribunal acknowledged the need for a detailed examination involving case laws and evidence appreciation. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, scheduling the appeal for regular hearing on a future date for thorough consideration. This decision indicated the necessity for a comprehensive review before reaching a final judgment on the matter.
|
