2011 (1) TMI 513 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - Confiscation - Provisional clearance of goods on execution of bond - Rule 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 - The grievance of the appellant is that the requirement of submitting reconciliation statement within the period prescribed under Regulation 7 is mandatory and in the present case, the respondent has furnished the statement beyond the period of three months and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay in filing the statement - Since the Rule itself confers discretion to grant extension of time for furnishing the statement, in the facts of the present case, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal cannot be faulted, especially when the statement under Rule 7 was submitted before finalisation of the provisional assessment - Appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing reconciliation statement under Regulation 7 of Project Import Regulations, 1986.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the justification of condoning the delay in filing a reconciliation statement under Regulation 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986. The respondent had imported capital goods for a specific project and claimed duty exemption under the Central Excise Tariff Act. The obligation under Rule 7 required the importer to submit a statement with necessary documents within three months from the date of clearance for home consumption. The respondent failed to meet this deadline but submitted the statement belatedly. The adjudicating officer refused to accept the statement, leading to the denial of the exemption benefit. Upon appeal, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and directed a fresh review considering the reconciliation statement.

The appellant contended that the requirement to submit the reconciliation statement within the prescribed three months was mandatory. They argued that since the respondent submitted the statement beyond the stipulated time, the Tribunal erred in condoning the delay. However, the Court held that Rule 7's requirement was directory, not mandatory. The Court reasoned that the importer could still avail the exemption even if the statement was not submitted within the specified time. Additionally, Rule 7 allowed for extending the submission period, indicating a discretionary element. In this case, the Tribunal's exercise of discretion in accepting the statement before finalizing the provisional assessment was deemed appropriate.

Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the revenue's argument and dismissed the appeal without costs. The judgment clarified that the requirement to furnish the statement within three months was not absolute, given the provisions allowing for discretion and extension of time under Rule 7. The decision emphasized the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case and the flexibility inherent in the regulatory framework.