2008 (7) TMI 262 - AT - Customs

Wrong mentioning of ITC Code in the license issued by DGFT authorities - Revenue in their grounds of appeal have admitted that the description of goods in the licence was correct but the Code heading is wrong - However, there is nothing in the grounds to show that when such typographical error is committed by the DGFT and that the respondents have applied for the rectification of such typographical mistake by DGFT how can the importer be held responsible for the same and be denied the benefit

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of imported chemical under ITC Code.
2. Validity of import licence with incorrect code.
3. Rectification of typographical error by DGFT.
4. Commissioner (Appeals) decision on benefit to the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of "1, 3 - Dichloro Propanol - 2" classified under ITC Code 29055900, requiring a licence. The respondent held a licence with a typographical error mentioning another code, CTH 29051900, instead of the correct one. The correct code was later mentioned in subsequent licences for the same item.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) acknowledged the error by DGFT in mentioning the wrong code on the licence but extended the benefit to the assessee. The Commissioner emphasized that the licence granted for the correct item should not be denied due to a clerical mistake. The Revenue argued that the licence was invalid due to the incorrect code, but the Tribunal found no basis for holding the importer responsible for a typographical error made by DGFT.

3. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's grounds lacked evidence of the importer's responsibility for the typographical error and criticized the Revenue's lenient approach in rectifying such errors. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's grounds and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to set aside the OIAs and allow the appeals, emphasizing that the benefit of the licence could not be denied due to a clerical mistake.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals and disposed of the stay petitions, affirming the decision that the benefit of the licence should not be denied to the importer based on a typographical error made by the DGFT. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the substance of the licence rather than technical errors in the code mentioned on the document.