1999 (6) TMI 350 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 31/97 for imported materials.
2. Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 80/95 for Smoke/Maladour Eliminator imported under DEEC scheme.

Issue 1: Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 31/97 for imported materials:

The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Originals denying exemption under Notification No. 31/97 for "Super soap body wash concentrate" and "Super soap lotion concentrate" imported under DEEC scheme. The lower authority contended that there was no established nexus between the imported goods and their intended use for the purposes stated in the DEEC license. The appellant justified the import for disinfecting factory workers in contact with edible products. The adjudicating authority accepted the license for clearance but denied the exemption under the notification, stating the goods were for cleaning individuals and not for use in final goods production. However, the Tribunal's decisions supported that once export obligations were fulfilled, the nexus between imported and exported goods need not be proven, favoring the appellants.

Issue 2: Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 80/95 for Smoke/Maladour Eliminator:

The second case involved the denial of exemption under Notification No. 80/95 for Smoke/Maladour Eliminator imported under DEEC scheme. The lower authority held that the imported items were not required for manufacturing final products, fish and fish products. However, since the DEEC license specifically permitted the import of the eliminator, no action for alleged ITC violation was initiated. The adjudicating authority accepted the license for clearing the goods, as they were mentioned in the license, but denied the exemption based on the goods not being considered necessary for use in the resultant products.

In both cases, the Commissioner analyzed the definitions and conditions of the exemption notifications. The Notification No. 31/97 exempted goods from customs duty if covered by a Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate issued after April 1, 1997, and utilized only for export obligation discharge. The dispute centered on whether the imported items were essential for the resultant products. The Commissioner interpreted "manufacture" broadly, including processes incidental to final product completion. As the imported goods were necessary for maintaining hygiene and improving working conditions related to fish processing, they qualified for exemption. The Commissioner emphasized that goods covered by the DEEC license should also be eligible for exemption under the notification. Ultimately, the Commissioner allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and granting the benefit of exemption to the appellants.