1999 (5) TMI 346 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Public Notice No. 34/97 vs. Public Notice No. 150/95.
2. Entitlement to supplementary passbook credit for exports made prior to the amendment date.
3. Valuation of inputs for the purpose of calculating passbook credit.
4. Consistency in the application of policy by different customs authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Public Notice No. 34/97 vs. Public Notice No. 150/95:
The appellant argued that Public Notice No. 34/97, which came into effect on 14-3-1997, should not apply to their case as the exports were completed prior to this date. The department, however, applied Public Notice No. 34/97 retrospectively, leading to the denial of the supplementary passbook credit. The tribunal found that Public Notice No. 34/97 is prospective in nature and does not affect exports made before its enactment. The appellant's exports, having been completed between June 1995 and February 1997, should be governed by Public Notice No. 150/95 and Customs Notification No. 104/95.

2. Entitlement to Supplementary Passbook Credit for Exports Made Prior to the Amendment Date:
The appellant exported hexahydrothymol BP/USP using mentha arvensis as the input and claimed supplementary passbook credit based on Public Notice No. 150/95. The tribunal noted that the appellant had consistently received credit under this notice for previous exports. The department's sudden application of Public Notice No. 34/97 for exports predating its enactment was found to be unjustified. The tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the supplementary credit as claimed.

3. Valuation of Inputs for the Purpose of Calculating Passbook Credit:
The department valued the inputs based on mentha piperita, which the appellant argued was not economically viable for their export product. The tribunal examined technical literature and found that mentha piperita is not typically used for manufacturing menthol due to its high cost. The department's insistence on using mentha piperita for valuation was deemed incorrect. The tribunal supported the appellant's claim that mentha arvensis was the appropriate input for valuation, as it was economically viable and technically suitable.

4. Consistency in the Application of Policy by Different Customs Authorities:
The appellant faced inconsistent application of policy by different customs authorities. While Mumbai Port and Mumbai Airport customs granted the credit based on mentha arvensis, Nhava Sheva customs refused, citing the need to appeal the Assistant Commissioner's order. The tribunal emphasized the need for a consistent approach across all customs authorities. The appellant's claim was supported by the Central Board's telex/fax message, which clarified that their case should be governed by Customs Notification No. 104/95 and Public Notice No. 150/95.

Conclusion:
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the supplementary passbook credit as per Public Notice No. 150/95 and Customs Notification No. 104/95. The decision emphasized the prospective nature of Public Notice No. 34/97 and the need for consistent application of policy by customs authorities.

← Previous Next →