9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act regarding import of graphic art films under "Project Import" scheme. 2. Rejection of registration of graphic art films under the "Project Import" scheme. 3. Legal validity of the impugned orders regarding the import of graphic art films. 4. Consideration of the necessity of graphic art films for the maintenance of machinery under Tariff Headings. 5. Weightage to be given to the certificate issued by the third respondent in the import process. Analysis: 1. The case involved a partnership firm engaged in printing and publishing seeking to import a colour offset printing machine under the "Project Import" scheme. The dispute arose when the second and first respondents rejected the registration of graphic art films, a component necessary for testing the machinery, under the scheme. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent and direct the registration of the graphic art films. 2. The respondents contended that graphic art films did not qualify under Tariff Headings 84.66(i)(d) or 84.66(ii) as they were not essential for the maintenance of the machinery but intended for end-product manufacturing. They argued that the impugned orders were legally valid, emphasizing the distinction between raw materials for manufacture and spare parts for maintenance under the Customs Tariff Act. 3. The petitioner's counsel argued that graphic art films were necessary for testing the machinery, constituting a part of the initial setting up process. The court analyzed Tariff Headings 84.66(i)(d) and 84.66(ii) to determine the applicability of the import of graphic art films for the maintenance of the imported machinery. The court held that graphic art films were not essential for maintenance under the scheme. 4. However, the court acknowledged the argument that a small quantity of graphic art films might be required for the initial testing of the machinery post-erection. It was noted that the intention behind importing various sizes of graphic art films was for testing purposes and not for final product manufacturing. The court considered the necessity of graphic art films in the initial setup of the unit under the relevant Tariff Heading. 5. The court gave weight to the certificate issued by the third respondent recommending the benefit of "Project Import" for the machinery and graphic art films. Drawing parallels with a previous judgment, the court emphasized the significance of such certificates in import procedures. The court held that the import of graphic art films should be considered under the "Project Import" scheme, granting the relief sought by the petitioner. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, directing the import of graphic art films under the "Project Import" scheme, based on the necessity for initial testing of the machinery and the weightage given to the certificate issued by the third respondent.
|
