2018 (1) TMI 129 - AT - Customs

Duty-free import in terms of the N/N. 52/2003 - Fire fighting equipments - Smoke detectors - Micro perforated fiber sheets - Cafeteria tables - whether these goods would be covered for duty-free import in terms of the N/N. 52/2003? - Held that - there is no dispute to the fact that the goods have been covered by valid certificate from the STPI and also the goods were still found in the bonded warehouse - reliance placed in the case of ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE 2007 (8) TMI 509 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , where it was held that once the approval has been taken from the STPI authorities, for import of certain goods, the benefit of duty free clearance has to be necessarily given by the Customs authorities - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against duty demands on imported goods eligible for duty-free clearance under Customs Notification No.52/2003.

Analysis:
1. Background and Dispute: The appellant, a Software Technology Park (STP) unit, imported goods like fire fighting equipment, smoke detectors, fiber sheets, and cafeteria tables eligible for duty-free clearance under Customs Notification No.52/2003. Subsequently, duty demands were raised by the Department, challenging the duty-free status of these goods.

2. Arguments: The appellant's consultant argued that the goods were allowed for use in the STP unit based on a valid certificate from STPI authorities. Despite being warehoused in the appellant's premises, duty demands were raised later. The consultant relied on a Tribunal decision emphasizing that once goods are imported with a valid certificate, the benefit cannot be denied.

3. Tribunal Decision: The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that goods approved by STPI authorities for import must be granted duty-free clearance by Customs. The Tribunal highlighted the interconnected nature of safety and security, stating that safety is integral to security. It emphasized that the Customs Department should have taken up any concerns with the Commerce Ministry if they disagreed with the approval granted by STPI authorities.

4. Conclusion: Considering that the goods were covered by a valid certificate and were still in the bonded warehouse, the Tribunal set aside the duty demands, allowing the appeal. The Tribunal's decision in the cited case was deemed applicable to all goods under dispute, leading to the reversal of the impugned order.

This detailed analysis outlines the background, arguments presented, Tribunal's decision based on a previous case, and the ultimate conclusion favoring the appellant due to the validity of the STPI certificate and the absence of disputes regarding the goods in the bonded warehouse.