9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of amending Notification No. 262/92-Cus., dated 27-8-1992 to electronic components already imported with bill of entry filed on 27-7-1992. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal concerned M/s. Gujarat Communications and Electronics Ltd. questioning the applicability of amending Notification No. 262/92-Cus. to electronic components already imported with a bill of entry filed on 27-7-1992. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) held that the exemption for goods imported under the bill of entry dated 27-7-1992 should be determined based on the effective duty of customs as on the date of the bill of entry. 2. The appellants argued that despite the bill of entry being dated 27-7-1992, they were entitled to the benefits of the amending Notification No. 262/92-Cus. as their import license was issued on 23-9-1992 and goods were cleared on 4-11-1992. They contended that the amending notification should apply to the goods in question. 3. The Tribunal heard the arguments presented by the JDR, Shri S.N. Ojha, and reviewed the facts on record to make a decision. 4. The original Notification No. 162/90-Cus. exempted raw materials and components for specified goods from customs duty for manufacturers supplying to export-oriented units. The notification was amended by Notification No. 262/92-Cus., dated 27-8-1992, adding new items for exemption. The appellants claimed that the rate of customs duty for goods imported with a bill of entry on 27-7-1992 should be determined based on the amending notification. 5. The Tribunal emphasized that the import license does not serve as an exemption notification, and customs duty exemption must align with the valid notification on the relevant date, which, in this case, was the bill of entry date of 27-7-1992. As the amending notification was issued on 27-8-1992 and the bill of entry date was prior, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision. 6. The Tribunal noted that the amending notification expanded exemption areas and applied to new goods, indicating that it was not procedural but substantive. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the amending notification could not have retrospective effect. 7. Referring to the Bombay Oil Indus. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India case, the Tribunal cited that amendments not of a clarificatory nature do not have retrospective effect, making goods imported before the amendment ineligible for the new exemption. 8. After considering all aspects, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal and rejected it based on the analysis of the relevant facts and circumstances.
|
