1998 (9) TMI 294 - AT - Customs

Equipments foBenefit of exemption not available under Notification No. 515/86-Cus.as amended by Notification No. 282/87-Cus. r on-shore oil exploration -

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 515/86-Cus. dated 30-12-1986 and its subsequent amendment by Notification No. 282/87-Cus. dated 22-7-1987.
2. Requirement of certificates for availing concessional rate of duty.
3. Compliance with the conditions of the notification.
4. Consideration of procedural deviations in certificate issuance.

Interpretation of Notification No. 515/86-Cus. and its Amendment:
The case involved the import of equipment for on-shore oil exploration, subject to specific conditions outlined in Notification No. 515/86-Cus. dated 30-12-1986. The notification required certificates from authorized officers to certify the imported goods' suitability and non-manufacture in India. An amendment by Notification No. 282/87-Cus. dated 22-7-1987 replaced the certification requirements. The appellants believed that the amendment necessitated only one essentiality certificate. However, the Tribunal clarified that both certificates remained mandatory post-amendment.

Requirement of Certificates for Concessional Duty:
The dispute arose as the appellants failed to produce the necessary certificates at the time of importation. Subsequently, they applied for refunds after obtaining the required certificates. The lower appellate authority rejected the appeals, emphasizing the absence of essential certificates mandated by the original notification. The appellants argued that the certificates from the Member Secretary of the Empowered Committee sufficed post-amendment. The Respondent contended that a certificate confirming non-manufacture in India was still necessary, which the appellants failed to provide.

Compliance with Notification Conditions:
The Tribunal scrutinized the certificates produced by the appellants, noting that while the essentiality certificate was obtained, the crucial certification of goods not being manufactured in India was missing. The absence of this certification was deemed a substantive non-compliance with the notification's conditions. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of the non-manufacture certification in saving foreign exchange, essential for availing the concessional duty rate. The attestation by the Assistant Development Officer did not fulfill the specific requirement of certifying non-manufacture in India, leading to the rejection of the appeals.

Consideration of Procedural Deviations:
The appellants argued that the attestation by the Assistant Development Officer should suffice as certification, considering it a procedural deviation. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, emphasizing that the certification's substance, not just formality, was crucial for meeting the notification's conditions. Procedural deviations were deemed insufficient to grant the benefit of the concessional duty rate. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision based on non-compliance with the notification's certification requirements.