2010 (10) TMI 239 - AT - Customs

Duty Free Import Authorizations(DFIA) - It is clear that this Tribunal had already settled the issue of whether Cocoa Powder is covered under the description of input item Flour permitted under the DFIA issued against export of Biscuit in order No. 1553/09 - It may also be noted that it is not proper for the Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore, to rely upon his predecessor s order, which had already been set aside by the CESTAT - It is well settled in law that classification/clarification on Import Policy issued by Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade are binding on Customs as far as ITC Policy is concerned even if such clarifications are signed by Joint Director General of Foreign Trade - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of the term "Flour" in Duty Free Import Authorizations (DFIA) against the import of Cocoa Powder.
- Commissioner's jurisdiction in examining amendment sheets beyond the scope of remand order.
- Precedence of amendment sheets over original documents in customs clearance.

Analysis:
1. Interpretation of "Flour" in DFIA: The appeal involved the interpretation of the term "Flour" in Duty Free Import Authorizations issued against the export of Biscuits for the import of Cocoa Powder. The Tribunal held that "Flour" and "Powder" are synonymous, allowing for a wider interpretation. It concluded that Cocoa Powder falls under the description of "Flour" as per the DFIA, supported by dictionary meanings and information. The Tribunal highlighted the relevance of Chapter Headings in determining the scope of imported items covered under the license.

2. Commissioner's Jurisdiction: The Commissioner, upon remand back order, examined the amendment sheets of DFIA beyond the limited purpose specified by the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by delving into the issue of whether Cocoa Powder was covered by the term "Flour," a matter already settled by the Tribunal in a previous order. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner for going beyond the remand order's scope and relying on the predecessor's order, which had been set aside by the CESTAT.

3. Precedence of Amendment Sheets: The Tribunal emphasized that the original amendment sheets of DFIA, duly attested and authenticated, hold precedence over the previous documents for which they are issued. It reiterated that classification and clarifications on Import Policy by the Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade are binding on Customs, even if signed by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the interpretation of "Flour" in DFIA for the import of Cocoa Powder, criticized the Commissioner for exceeding jurisdiction, and affirmed the precedence of amendment sheets in customs clearance procedures. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the scope of remand orders and following established legal principles in customs matters.