2008 (2) TMI 151 - AT - Customs

Import of second hand goods by STP assessee produces documents to show that appellant is a STP unit - held that in terms of Para 6.3 of EXIM Policy, a STP unit does not require separate licence for importing the goods which are not prohibited. The imported goods are not prohibited and they could have been imported without licence, as they are all second hand goods confiscation & penalty are not justified

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Import and Export Policy 2002-07 regarding import of goods without payment of duty.
2. Consideration of documents supporting the appellant's status as a Software Technology Park (STP) unit.
3. Requirement of separate license for importing goods under Para 6.3 of EXIM Policy.

Analysis:
1. The appeal in this case arose from an Order-in-Original where the Commissioner of Customs held that the imported items were second-hand goods classified as capital goods, necessitating a license under Para 2.17 of FTP and not eligible for benefits under Para 2.33 of the Hand Book of Procedures. The Commissioner ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty. The appellants argued that Import and Export Policy 2002-07 allowed duty-free import unless specifically prohibited, citing Para 6.2(b) under Chapter 6. However, the Commissioner rejected this argument.

2. The appellants presented documents from the Software Technology Park of India, showing approval for setting up an STP unit. They contended that the failure to submit these documents earlier led to the rejection of their claim by the Commissioner. The learned Counsel highlighted a similar case, Aditi Technologies vs. CC, where documents proving STP unit status were crucial in determining import requirements.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) emphasized that the appellants should have provided the approval for their STP unit during adjudication. The Tribunal, after reviewing the documents, acknowledged that the appellants were approved for setting up an STP unit by the Government of India. Referring to the Aditi Technologies case, the Tribunal concluded that a STP unit does not need a separate license for importing non-prohibited goods under Para 6.3 of the EXIM Policy. As the imported goods were not prohibited and could be imported without a license, the appeal was allowed based on the precedent set in the Aditi Technologies case, granting the appellants consequential relief.

This judgment clarifies the interpretation of import policies, the significance of supporting documents for STP unit status, and the exemption from separate licensing requirements for STP units under specific conditions outlined in the EXIM Policy.