1995 (6) TMI 111 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Essentiality Certificate for reassessment of imported goods.
2. Applicability of concessional duty rate under Notification No. 60/88-Cus. read with Notification No. 59/88-Cus.
3. Procedural compliance with the conditions of the Notification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Essentiality Certificate for Reassessment of Imported Goods:

The appellants argued that the Essentiality Certificate issued on 6-4-1992 should be valid for reassessment of goods imported and cleared before this date. They contended that there is no stipulation in the Notification requiring the Essentiality Certificate to be produced at the time of importation. The appellants cited several decisions to support their claim that reassessment based on a subsequently obtained Essentiality Certificate is permissible.

The respondent, however, maintained that the Essentiality Certificate must be available at the time of clearance of the goods. The lower authorities held that the certificate issued on 6-4-1992 was not valid for goods cleared earlier, as the importer did not furnish the required undertaking at the time of importation.

2. Applicability of Concessional Duty Rate under Notification No. 60/88-Cus. read with Notification No. 59/88-Cus.:

The appellants filed refund claims on the strength of a Duty Exemption Certificate issued by D.G.T.D., which was not submitted at the time of clearance. They argued that the concessional rate of duty was applicable under Notification No. 60/88-Cus. read with Notification No. 59/88-Cus., even if the Essentiality Certificate was obtained later. They cited various cases to argue that procedural deficiencies should not bar the grant of substantive benefits.

The Tribunal examined the issue in light of the cited rulings and observed that the appellants had applied for the certificate on 29-1-1992. For three appeals, the Bill of Entry was presented before this date, making the ratio of the cited decisions inapplicable. For the remaining three appeals, the Bill of Entry was presented after the application date, making them eligible for the concessional rate.

3. Procedural Compliance with the Conditions of the Notification:

The appellants argued that the procedural requirements, such as the production of the Essentiality Certificate and the furnishing of an undertaking, should be considered as procedural and not substantive. They cited decisions where procedural failures were forgiven if there was substantial compliance with the Notification's conditions.

The Tribunal noted that the Essentiality Certificate and the undertaking were not mere procedural requirements but substantive for availing the concessional rate. The Tribunal also observed that the Essentiality Certificate issued on 6-4-1992 was valid for 12 months and did not cover goods imported before this date.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that procedural formalities should not obstruct substantial benefits. For three appeals where the goods were cleared after the application date (29-1-1992), the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 60/88-Cus. read with Notification No. 59/88-Cus. was applicable. These appeals (C/391/93, C/392/93, and C/522/93) were allowed, granting consequential relief according to the law. The other three appeals were not eligible for the concessional rate as the Bill of Entry was presented before the application date. Thus, the appeals were partly allowed.