2017 (7) TMI 114 - AT - Customs

Project import - permission for setting up a similar project in Goa permitting change of location from Pondicherry to Goa - confiscation for the reason the condition of the Project Import licence could not be fulfilled by appellant - Held that - When N/N. 230/86 dated 3.4.1986 relating to the Project Import Regulation is read, that does not exhibit any embargo or barrier restricting transfer of capital goods from shifting a project from one place to other - learned Commissioner shall conduct enquiry from the Goa Commissionerate as to whether the goods covered by the aforesaid bill of entry have arrived in Goa and installed thereat. If he is satisfied, that may not constitute violation of project of Project Import - matter is remanded to learned adjudicating authority to conduct a thorough enquiry and arrive at a proper conclusion affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of non-fulfillment of Project Import license conditions leading to confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Discrepancy between the project location specified in the license and the actual location of goods.
3. Lack of proper enquiry before imposing duty and redemption fine.
4. Interpretation of Notification No.230/86 regarding transfer of capital goods for project relocation.
5. Consideration of the judgment in the case of Jacsons Thevara v. Collector of Customs & Central Excise - 1992 (61) ELT 343 (SC).

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods for a project in Pondicherry under the Project Import Scheme but later shifted them to Goa with permission from the Ministry of Industry. Revenue alleged non-fulfillment of license conditions, invoking Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The discrepancy arose from the different notifications under which the Pondicherry and Goa projects were registered. The appellant argued that the Ministry's letter permitted the use of imported goods for the Goa project, referencing the earlier license for Pondicherry.
3. The adjudicating authority imposed duty and redemption fine without conducting a proper enquiry into the relocation of goods from Pondicherry to Goa, leading to a lack of clarity on the fulfillment of Project Import license conditions.
4. The Tribunal highlighted that Notification No.230/86 did not restrict the transfer of capital goods for project relocation, emphasizing the need for an enquiry to confirm the installation of goods in Goa to determine compliance with Project Import regulations.
5. The Tribunal directed a thorough enquiry to establish the facts regarding the relocation of goods and installation in Goa, emphasizing the importance of fulfilling post-import conditions under Section 111(o) before passing any order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the case to the adjudicating authority for a detailed enquiry to determine whether the goods imported for the Pondicherry project were shifted to and installed in Goa, ensuring compliance with Project Import regulations. The judgment in the case of Jacsons Thevara was considered relevant, and the necessity of factual investigation before reaching a conclusion was emphasized to uphold the integrity of Project Import conditions.