Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2007 (8) TMI AT This
Issues:
The appeal involves a claim for customs duty exemption for the import of a weft straightening machine. Details of the Judgment: The appellant, a manufacturer of fabrics, imported a weft straightening machine and claimed concessional Customs Duty Assessment under Notification No. 21 of 2002-Cus. The exemption was denied on the basis that the exemption is for a machine combining both weft straightening and calendering, not for machines performing only one function. The appellant contended that past notifications indicated exemption for both straightening and calendering machines. The appellant argued that there is no combined machine for weft straightening and calendaring as these processes occur at different stages of textile processing. The appellant relied on Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles to explain the processes involved in weft straightening and calendering. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that reading the notification as covering only a combination machine would render the entry nugatory as no such combination machine exists, and the benefit would not be available to the textile industry. It was emphasized that statutory provisions, including exemptions, should be interpreted to advance the purpose of the provision and not render it meaningless. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention. The earlier notifications provided a background for understanding the present entry, mentioning weft straightening and calendering machines separately. Since these processes require separate machines and no combined machine exists, the combined entry in the successor notifications was interpreted as continuing the exemption for both machines. The Tribunal highlighted that exemptions should be construed meaningfully and in context, and in the textile industry's situation, interpreting the entry as covering only a combined machine would render it meaningless and contrary to statutory intention. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief to the appellant.
|