Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1999 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1999 (11) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Issues:
- Interpretation of exemption from countervailing duty for imported goods
- Classification of imported goods under specific notification
- Application of approval letter for import of goods

Interpretation of Exemption from Countervailing Duty:
The case involved the import of Extruded and Oriented Plastic nets, grids, and composites, with the appellant claiming exemption from countervailing duty under Sl. No. 13 of Notification No. 15/94-C.E. The Adjudicating authority denied the benefit, leading to the appeal. The main issue was whether the imported goods matched the description specified in the notification for exemption.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellants argued that the imported products fell under the category of fencing and barriers as per the exemption notification. The Tribunal examined the goods' applications, as per the catalogue of M/s. Tenax Geosynthetics Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer. The products had diverse applications in various sectors such as civil engineering, waste management, construction, sports, agriculture, and packaging. The approval letter from the Ministry of Industry allowed import for specific end-uses like builder's ware, architectural aid, fencing, barriers, and structural elements.

Application of Approval Letter for Import of Goods:
The Tribunal analyzed the approval letter and the description of the imported products provided in the ITC Licence. It was observed that the imported goods were in running lengths for further utilization in manufacturing goods under the specified category of the exemption notification. Despite the appellant's reliance on previous correspondence regarding foreign collaboration, the Tribunal emphasized the clarity of the subsequent approval letter dated 12-1-1996, which outlined the specific products allowed for import. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the imported goods did not align with the goods described in Sl. No. 13 of the notification, upholding the lower authority's decision and dismissing the appeal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates