1983 (9) TMI 289 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 20/F. No. 60/192/76-DBK, dated 7th February, 1977.
2. Entitlement to exemption from customs and auxiliary duty.
3. Compliance with conditions stipulated in the notification.
4. Timing of endorsements on import licences.
5. Refund claims eligibility.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Notification No. 20/F. No. 60/192/76-DBK, dated 7th February, 1977:
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of the exclusion clause in the notification. The appellants argued that the terms "hosiery" and "knitwear" should be understood independently and not as qualifying the term "fabrics." They contended that "hosiery" and "knitwear" refer to finished goods and not fabrics. The tribunal agreed with this interpretation, emphasizing that "hosiery" and "knitwear" are distinct categories and cannot be linked to "embroidered fabrics." The tribunal found that the term "hosiery" has a definite connotation referring to finished goods, and thus, the appellants' exports of crimp nylon knitted fabrics do not fall under the exclusion clause of the notification.

2. Entitlement to Exemption from Customs and Auxiliary Duty:
The appellants claimed exemption from customs and auxiliary duty based on the notification, asserting that their imports were covered by the terms of the notification. The tribunal held that the appellants are entitled to exemption for the consignments of imports in question, as the interpretation of the notification supports their claim. The tribunal emphasized that the exclusion clause does not apply to the appellants' exported fabrics, thus entitling them to the exemption.

3. Compliance with Conditions Stipulated in the Notification:
The notification required that the importer produce a certificate or endorsement on the import licence specifying the value of the yarn allowed to be imported against exports. The tribunal found that the appellants had satisfied this condition, as the endorsements were obtained before the refund claims were filed. The tribunal noted that the appellants had valid import licences duly endorsed by the State Trading Corporation (STC), indicating the value of the exported goods.

4. Timing of Endorsements on Import Licences:
The lower authorities had rejected the refund claims on the grounds that the endorsements on the import licences were obtained after the clearances from the warehouse. The tribunal disagreed with this view, stating that the relevant time for satisfying the conditions is when the refund claims are filed, not at the time of clearances. The tribunal found that the appellants had met all the conditions stipulated in the notification at the time of filing the refund claims.

5. Refund Claims Eligibility:
The tribunal held that the appellants are eligible for refund claims, as they had satisfied all the conditions of the notification at the time of filing the claims. The tribunal emphasized that the provisions pertaining to refund do not place any restrictive meaning, and the right to claim refund is not circumscribed by any restrictions related to errors or misconstruction at the time of duty assessment. The tribunal allowed the refund claims, subject to a modification in the case of Stretchlon (Pvt.) Ltd., where the refund amount was reduced to Rs. 2,12,545/-.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Collector, allowing all five appeals with consequential relief by way of refund to the appellants, subject to the specified modification.