9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of DEEC Licence at the time of shipment and clearance from bond. 2. Interpretation of the term "importer" in relation to DEEC Licence requirements. Analysis: 1. The appellant imported goods based on a transferable DEEC Licence, which was rejected as lapsed at the time of clearance from the bond. However, it was valid when the goods were under import at the time of shipment. The Tribunal referred to past judgments like EID Parry (India) Ltd. and Chloride Industries Ltd., emphasizing that the licence being valid at the time of shipment is crucial. The learned JCDR argued that the licence should be in the importer's name at both shipment and clearance, but the Counsel cited Notification No. 31/97-Cus., stating the importer can include anyone claiming on their behalf. The Tribunal concluded that the licence is for the goods, not just the importer, and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order. 2. The Tribunal found that the issue of DEEC Licence validity had been settled by previous judgments, and there was no need to distinguish in favor of the Revenue. The JCDR's argument that the licence should be in the appellant's name at shipment was rejected, as the licence covers the goods and not just the importer. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer can include anyone claiming on their behalf, as per the definition of "import" in the Policy. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, following the precedent set by previous judgments with any consequential relief granted.
|
