9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notification No. 350-Cus./76 and subsequent Notification No. 30-Cus./77. Analysis: The issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of exemption notification No. 350-Cus./76. The original authority interpreted the clause "falling under heading Nos." to qualify the "part" and not the "article," while the Appellate Collector held that the clause qualifies the "article" and not the "part." The Appellate Collector's view was that parts of the article, even if classifiable elsewhere in the tariff, would be entitled to the exemption if meant for articles classified under the specified headings in the notification. The Government of India tentatively viewed Notification No. 30-Cus./77 as an amendment to Notification No. 350-Cus./76, not a clarification. It was observed that parts of articles imported before 9-3-1977, falling under headings other than those specified in Notification No. 350-Cus./76, would not be eligible for concessional assessment. A show cause notice for review under section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued to the importers. In response to the show cause notice, importers argued that the amendment through Notification No. 30-Cus./77 did not intend to change the applicability of Notification No. 350-Cus./76. They referred to an explanatory memorandum indicating that the exemption would apply to all parts, regardless of their classification under the tariff. Importers highlighted the industry's longstanding interpretation of the notification and questioned the need for the notification if the Ministry's tentative interpretation was correct. The Government considered the importers' submissions and analyzed the wording of Notification No. 350-Cus./76. They observed that grammatically, the clause "falling under heading No." qualified the 'article' and not the 'parts.' The Hindi version of the notification also supported this interpretation. The Government noted the historical context of the notifications and the continuity of concessional duty rates for parts. They upheld the Appellate Collector's order, emphasizing that the amended notifications aimed to clarify rather than change the existing interpretation, thus maintaining the status quo. Therefore, the Government upheld the Appellate order as correct in law and concluded the review proceedings in favor of the importers.
|
