9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of duty-free Advance Licences for import of Polyester filament yarn. 2. Requirement of nexus between imported materials and exported product under duty exemption scheme. 3. Determining the eligibility of imported Polyester filament yarn for clearance against Advance licences. Analysis: 1. The case involved the appellants importing Polyester filament yarn against duty-free Advance Licences for the export of Polyester filament shirting fabrics. The Customs House initiated proceedings, alleging a mismatch in denierage specifications between the imported yarn and the yarn used in the exported product. The Addl. Collector of Customs passed an order confiscating the goods and imposing fines without a written show cause notice. The appellants contested the case, arguing that the imported yarn was covered by the licences and met the requirements of the duty exemption scheme. 2. The argument centered around the requirement of a nexus between the imported materials and the exported product under the duty exemption scheme. The Customs notification defined "materials" as raw materials, components, or consumables required for the production of the export product. The appellants relied on Custom House Public Notice and Department clarifications to support their case. The clarification emphasized that the imported goods should find application in the export product and need not be physically incorporated into it. It highlighted the commercial use of inputs and the normal manufacturing process as key factors in determining eligibility for duty exemption. 3. The Tribunal considered the clarification provided by the notification issuing authority as indicative of the exemption's intention. Despite the Addl. Collector's argument regarding denierage specifications, the Tribunal found that the imported Polyester filament yarn of 50D was eligible for clearance against the Advance licences. It noted that the imported yarn matched the description in the licences and was commercially used in fabric production. The Tribunal emphasized that the exemption did not require establishing a close nexus between the imported inputs and the export product, as long as the goods were of a kind commercially known to be used in the export product. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants.
|
