2013 (4) TMI 337 - AT - Customs

Appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 40/2006-Cus dated 1.5.2006 for imported goods Sodium Saccharin Denied, as the goods under import does not satisfy the description given in the licence and the goods for which the licence has been issued is different in quantity compared to the item indicated in the licence- lower appellate authority, allowed their appeal based on the DGFT s Circular No.50/2008 and the Board s Circular No.46/2007 Aggrieved revenue filed this appeal Held that - The appellant has imported Sodium Saccharin and Sodium Saccharin is a Corrosion Inhibitor as clarified by the Norms Committee of the Ministry of Commerce in consultation with the Department of CECRI-CSIR, Govt. of India. Therefore, any product which is Corrosion Inhibitor imported under DFIA licence, is eligible for benefit of Notification No.40/2006. From the records, it is also seen that the respondent herein has not exceeded the quantity and value limit specified in the licence. we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue as devoid of merits.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) and Notification No. 40/2006-Cus.
2. Compliance with quantity and value limits specified in the license.
3. Application of Circulars issued by DGFT and CBE&C.
4. Precedent set by previous Tribunal decisions.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant importing Sodium Saccharin under a transferable DFIA license, seeking benefits under Notification No. 40/2006-Cus. The dispute arose as the license specified "Corrosion Inhibitor" while the goods imported were Sodium Saccharin. The appellant argued that Sodium Saccharin was considered a "Corrosion Inhibitor" based on certificates and clarifications from relevant authorities.

2. The appellant imported 5 MT of Sodium Saccharin at a different cost than specified in the license. However, the lower appellate authority allowed the appeal, citing Circulars from DGFT and CBE&C, which emphasized a liberal view for goods not covered in specific paragraphs of the Handbook of Procedures. The quantity and value limits specified in the license were not exceeded by the appellant, leading to the eligibility for benefits under the license.

3. The respondent relied on the Norms Committee Minutes and previous Tribunal decisions to support their claim that Sodium Saccharin could be imported as a "Corrosion Inhibitor" under the DFIA license. The Circulars issued by DGFT and CBE&C further supported this interpretation, stating that compliance with technical specifications was not required for goods not covered in specific paragraphs of the Handbook of Procedures.

4. The Tribunal, after considering all submissions and relevant Circulars, upheld the lower appellate authority's decision. They concluded that Sodium Saccharin could be considered a "Corrosion Inhibitor" based on clarifications from relevant authorities. As the appellant did not exceed the quantity and value limits specified in the license, they were deemed eligible for benefits under Notification No. 40/2006-Cus. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, finding no merit in their arguments.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal interpretations, compliance issues, and precedents considered in the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the case.