2008 (9) TMI 369 - AT - Customs

Project import at concessional rate of duty under the Customs Notification No. 315/83. - compliance with the condition of Notification. - We agree with the appellant s contention that counter signature of the Industrial Adviser would be sufficient compliance with the Notification. No importer can compel the officers to issue permission in a particular manner. The counter signature would mean that the Industrial Adviser has seen the certificate and is recommending it, which is the main purpose of the notification. - It is not the case of the Revenue that the machines imported by the appellants have not been used for the purpose or exemption notification has been misused. Therefore, appeal is allowed concessional rate of duty available

Summary

Issues:
- Import of machinery under project import scheme
- Compliance with Customs Notification No. 315/83
- Provisional assessment and demand of differential duty
- Signatories on recommendation letters
- Description of goods and specifications

Import of Machinery under Project Import Scheme:
The appellant imported two machines under the project import scheme and filed bills of entry to clear them at a concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 315/83. The notification required a specific rank of officer to certify and recommend the grant of exemption for the imported goods.

Compliance with Customs Notification No. 315/83:
The provisional assessment was finalized after a show cause notice, leading to a demand for a differential duty. The issue arose when the signatories on the recommendation letters did not match the officers specified in the notification. The appellant argued that the counter signature of the Industrial Adviser should be considered sufficient compliance with the notification.

Provisional Assessment and Demand of Differential Duty:
The confirmation of the demand for a differential duty was based on the discrepancy in signatories on the recommendation letters. The appellant contended that the insistence on a specific signatory was too technical and that the Industrial Adviser's counter signature should be deemed adequate.

Signatories on Recommendation Letters:
The appellant presented a certificate with a counter signature by the Industrial Adviser, arguing that this should fulfill the requirement of the notification. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the counter signature indicated the Industrial Adviser's recommendation, which was the main purpose of the notification.

Description of Goods and Specifications:
Regarding the description of goods and specifications, the appellant argued that the description on the bill of entry matched the recommendation letter by the Industrial Adviser. The Tribunal found that the main name of the machine and its value mentioned in the recommendation letter were sufficient for comparison, rejecting the Revenue's argument for detailed specifications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants as there was no evidence of misuse of the exemption notification or non-compliance with the intended purpose of the scheme.