2021 (12) TMI 250 - AT - Customs

Benefit of exemption - Import of artificial glass - Machine Tuft/Coated Polyethylene Twisted Grass for soccer field known as artificial grass and agrifab field sweeper from Canada for laying artificial football ground - competition of national or international level was conducted or not - Requirement to produce the end-use certificate - N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01/03/2002 - HELD THAT - As per the condition of Customs N/N. 21/2002-Cus at serial No. 393 there is no requirement by the respondent to produce end-use certificate. The only condition is that, if such goods are imported requires to be used in national or international championship to be held in India or abroad. Therefore, the certificate issued by the AIFF is suffice to fulfill the condition of the notificaition and there is no ambiguity in the said condition. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order granting benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus for imported goods - Requirement of fulfilling conditions for exemption - Interpretation of condition No. 85 of the notification - Certification by apex body for use in national or international championship - Dispute over whether imported goods used in a national or international competition - Challenge to denial of notification benefit - Consideration of relevant certificates and events by authorities - Legal arguments on fulfillment of conditions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Customs Notification Conditions:
The case involves an appeal against an order granting the benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus to the respondent for imported goods. The key issue revolves around the interpretation of condition No. 85 of the notification, which requires certification by the apex body for the use of goods in a national or international championship. The Revenue argued that the championship was not held in India and the respondent failed to provide evidence of any national or international level competition at the imported turf.

2. Submission by Authorized Representative:
The Authorized Representative highlighted the requirement of strict adherence to the notification conditions, citing a previous case law. It was contended that the respondent did not meet the conditions as no evidence was presented regarding a national or international competition held at the turf. The argument emphasized the need for compliance with the notification terms for claiming exemption.

3. Contention of Respondent's Counsel:
The Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order, asserting that the notification did not mandate the production of an end-use certificate beforehand. It was argued that since the turf had been used for competitions and training, the benefit of the notification should apply. The focus was on the actual use of the goods for events or championships, rather than pre-emptive certification.

4. Decision by the Tribunal:
After hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the impugned order and the arguments presented. The Tribunal noted that the certification by the All India Football Federation (AIFF) was sufficient to fulfill the conditions of the notification. The Tribunal emphasized that the condition did not explicitly require an end-use certificate and that the AIFF certification sufficed to demonstrate compliance with the requirement for national or international championships.

5. Observations of the Tribunal:
The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing that the AIFF certification met the conditions specified in the notification. The Tribunal found no ambiguity in the condition and rejected the application of the case law cited by the Authorized Representative. The decision highlighted the fulfillment of legal requirements and the absence of any infirmity in the impugned order, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision centered on the interpretation of the notification conditions, specifically regarding the certification by the apex body for the use of goods in national or international championships. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, emphasizing the sufficiency of the AIFF certification to meet the notification requirements, thereby upholding the impugned order and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.