2011 (1) TMI 358 - AT - Customs

Notification No. 39/96 S. No. 10(i) - it is clear that it was a clerical mistake committed by the CHA in writing the name of the importer as M/s. Shradha Outdoor Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Instead of M/s. Shradha Trading (India) - When there is no dispute about the fact that the purchase order was in the name of M/s. Shradha Trading (India) and all other relevant documents are in the name of the said firm and the fact of payment by Government of India to M/s. Shradha Trading (India) the sole fact of filing of bill of entry in the name of the respondent cannot be pressed into service for holding them the importers - Exemption is granted

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 39/96 regarding duty benefits for specific goods.
2. Determination of the actual importer when import documents are in the name of a different entity.
3. Consideration of sister concerns in import transactions.
4. Application of precedents in similar cases to the current scenario.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of duty benefits under Notification No. 39/96 for goods imported by M/s. Shradha Outdoor Equipments Pvt. Ltd. The notification provided benefits to specific goods for the Indian Army.

2. The Revenue contended that since the import documents were in the name of M/s. Shradha Trading (India), the actual importer, the benefits of the notification could not be extended to M/s. Shradha Outdoor Equipments Pvt. Ltd. A show cause notice was issued for recovery of the duty amount.

3. The Appellate Authority examined the factual position and concluded that M/s. Shradha Trading (India) was indeed the actual importer. Various documents, including purchase orders, certificates, invoices, and payment records, supported this conclusion. The CHA's error in filing the bill of entry in the wrong name was considered a clerical mistake.

4. The judgment referenced precedents such as M/s. Hindustan Fertilized Corporation v. CC, CC (Chandigarh) v. Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd., and M/s. Keshari Steels v. Collector of Customs, Bombay to support the decision. These cases emphasized the importance of considering the actual importer in import transactions, especially in cases involving sister concerns.

5. The Revenue's argument that M/s. Shradha Outdoor Equipments Pvt. Ltd. should be considered the importer solely based on the name in the bill of entry was rejected. The presence of all relevant documents in the name of M/s. Shradha Trading (India) and the clarification of the mistake by the importers themselves supported the decision to grant the duty benefits to the actual importer.

6. Ultimately, the appeal by the Revenue was rejected, emphasizing that technical errors in documentation should not be used to deny legitimate benefits to the importers, especially when the actual importer is clearly established through supporting evidence.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case and its legal implications.