1991 (3) TMI 246 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for benefit under Notification 288/88 versus Notification 132/85 for imported goods under Project Import Regulations.
2. Compliance with appellate directions by the lower authority.
3. Jurisdiction and propriety of the lower authority's actions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for benefit under Notification 288/88 versus Notification 132/85 for imported goods under Project Import Regulations:
The appellant sought the benefit of Notification 288/88 for certain goods imported under Project Import. The lower authority initially rejected this claim, asserting that only Notification 132/85 was applicable. The appellate authority, however, set aside this decision, directing the lower authority to examine if the goods met the description under Notification 288/88. The lower authority, disregarding this directive, reiterated that only Notification 132/85 applied. The appellate authority clarified that classification of goods and applicability of exemption notifications are distinct aspects. It held that the importer could choose any beneficial notification, provided the conditions were met. The appellate authority emphasized that Notification 288/88 did not specify any particular classification, thereby allowing its benefits for goods under Project Import Regulations if they met the notification's conditions.

2. Compliance with appellate directions by the lower authority:
The lower authority failed to comply with the appellate directions to re-examine the goods under Notification 288/88, instead reiterating its original stance. This non-compliance was highlighted as a significant issue, with the appellate authority noting that the lower authority virtually sat in judgment over the appellate order, which was improper and beyond its jurisdiction.

3. Jurisdiction and propriety of the lower authority's actions:
The appellate authority found the lower authority's actions not only illegal and improper but also without jurisdiction. The lower authority's disregard for judicial propriety and discipline by not following the appellate order was criticized. The appellate authority underscored that such conduct undermines the appellate institution and should not be cited as a precedent.

Conclusion:
The appellate authority directed the lower authority to re-examine the goods under Notification 288/88, ensuring compliance with the notification's conditions. The impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was allowed in principle. The appellate authority also expressed disapproval of the lower authority's conduct, emphasizing the need for adherence to judicial propriety and discipline in future cases.