1996 (4) TMI 244 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of bonding facilities to 100% export-oriented units for parcels received by post
- Interpretation of relevant Customs Act sections and Notification No. 13/81
- Applicability of Public Notice No. 257/85 in denying benefits to goods imported by post

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed the issue of denial of bonding facilities to 100% export-oriented units for parcels received by post. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Acoustic and Electric Guitars under Customs bond, imported Guitar components for evaluation purposes. The Customs authorities denied clearance of parcels received by post without duty payment, leading to the appellants paying duty under protest. The appellants argued that existing notifications did not exclude parcels received by post from bonding facilities for 100% export-oriented units. The Tribunal noted the absence of communication of Public Notice No. 257/85 to the appellants and emphasized the lack of distinction in Notification No. 13/81 between imports by sea, air, or post.

Regarding the interpretation of relevant Customs Act sections and Notification No. 13/81, the Tribunal analyzed the submissions made by the learned DR. The DR highlighted Sections 46, 59, 61, and 65 of the Customs Act along with Notification No. 13/81 to support the denial of benefits. However, the Tribunal found the DR's arguments lacking merit. Section 46 was deemed irrelevant as it excludes goods imported by post from Chapter VII of the Customs Act. Sections 59, 61, and 65, falling under Chapter IX, pertain to warehousing procedures and do not directly apply to the issue at hand.

The Tribunal further delved into the applicability of Public Notice No. 257/85 in denying benefits to goods imported by post. The appellants contended that the Public Notice was not binding on them and that the denial of bonding facilities based on the mode of importation lacked statutory backing. The Tribunal observed that the lower authorities failed to assess whether the conditions stipulated in Notification No. 13/81 were met. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration in light of the Notification's conditions, with benefits to be granted upon fulfillment to the satisfaction of the proper officer. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any, granted to the appellants.