2007 (2) TMI 422 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 36/96-Cus, dated 23-7-1996.
2. Requirement of 'end-use certificate' for imported goods.
3. Interpretation of conditions in the Notification for claiming exemption.
4. Relevance of certificates provided by the importer.
5. Precedent regarding the necessity of 'end-use certificate'.

Analysis:

1. The issue revolved around the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 36/96-Cus, dated 23-7-1996, as amended by Notification No. 11/97-Cus, dated 1-3-1997, specifically related to Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) for use as manure or for the production of complex fertilizers. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order of the Assistant Commissioner, leading to an appeal by the revenue. The dispute centered on whether the imported goods qualified for the exemption as per the notification.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) raised concerns about the 'end-use certificate' not being produced by the appellant, which led to the initiation of proceedings against them. The certificate issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture was deemed insufficient as it did not verify the particulars of the imported goods, creating doubt about compliance with the conditions of the notification.

3. The interpretation of conditions in the Notification for claiming exemption was crucial. The Tribunal emphasized that no extraneous conditions could be introduced beyond those specified in the notification. The insistence on the production of an 'end-use certificate' was deemed contrary to established principles of interpretation. Serial No. 50 of the Notification granted exemption specifically for DAP for use as manure, and as long as the imported goods were intended for such use, the benefit of exemption should apply without additional requirements.

4. The certificates provided by the importer, including one from the M.P. Co-operative Marketing Federation, Bhopal, were crucial in demonstrating the actual use of the imported DAP. The Assistant Commissioner considered these certificates and dropped the show cause notice, highlighting the importance of proper documentation to support the intended use of the goods.

5. A precedent cited by the Tribunal from a previous case emphasized that an 'end-use certificate' should not be required unless explicitly mandated in the Notification. This precedent further supported the position that additional conditions cannot be imposed beyond what is specified in the relevant legal provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and set it aside, reinstating the decision of the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed based on the understanding that the imported goods met the conditions for exemption as specified in the Notification, and the production of 'end-use certificates' should not have been a mandatory requirement in this context.