2010 (7) TMI 979 - HC - Customs

Import of various types of bearings - denial of benefit of N/N. 40/2006-Cus., - According to the Revenue, a co-relation of technical characteristics, quality and specification is required to be established in respect of bearings sought to be imported that the bearings were actually used in the resultant product - Whether the Tribunal is justified in granting the benefit of N/N. 40/2006-Cus., when the Respondent failed to satisfy the conditions of the Notification as well as para 4.55.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy? - Held that - specifications provided in the DFIA authorisation have to be considered as sufficient for the customs purposes since the specifications are based on goods exported under a shipping bill. Therefore the responsibility to ensure that exporter gives a proper declaration while making exports in the shipping bill lies on both customs as well as DGFT authorities and having missed the bus at the time of export, it may not be correct to insist on specifications from a transferee of DIFA - Revenue was unable to point out from any of the documents available on record that the import was not in accordance with the licence conditions or the specifications provided therein - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Granting benefit under Customs Notification No. 40/2006-Cus.
2. Contradiction between Notification No. 40/2006 and Foreign Trade Policy.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the grant of benefits under Customs Notification No. 40/2006-Cus. The Tribunal allowed duty-free clearance under the DFIA Scheme for the import of bearings by the respondent. The Revenue contended that a correlation of technical characteristics, quality, and specification of the imported bearings with those used in the resultant product was necessary. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the Revenue's stance. It noted that the DFIA authorization specifications should suffice for customs purposes, emphasizing the responsibility of both customs and DGFT authorities in ensuring compliance during export. The Tribunal found no evidence on record to suggest non-compliance with license conditions or specifications, supporting its decision with legal precedent from A.V. Industries v. Union of India, 2005.

2. The second issue revolves around the alleged contradiction between Notification No. 40/2006 and para 4.55.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy. The Revenue raised concerns regarding the quality, value, and technical characteristics of the imported material vis-a-vis the resultant product. The Tribunal dismissed these concerns, highlighting the approval of export of motors with specific input specifications, which, in its view, negated the need for detailed technical specifications during import. It stressed the significance of the specifications in the DFIA authorization and the oversight roles of customs and DGFT authorities in ensuring compliance. The Tribunal's decision aligned with legal principles and previous judgments, leading to the dismissal of the appeal for lack of a substantial question of law.