2023 (6) TMI 420 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - import of PU coated leather cloths - test report of CLRI mentions the goods as flock fabric - Benefit of N/N. 11/97-Cus. dated. 01-Mar-1997 denied - PU coated sheets imported by the appellant declaring them as PU coated Sheets for used in making insoles - HELD THAT - Identical matter has been decided by the Tribunal in the case of PREET INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PUNE 2017 (2) TMI 359 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein the Circular No. 74/98-Cus dated 06.10.1998 was also examined. The said circular prescribed End use Certificate may be obtained in such circumstances in respect of imports were made under Notification No. 11/97-Cus. The said order points out that this circular can be applied prospectively and not retrospectively - In the instance case also the imports of the goods accorded prior to the issue of this circular. Thus, the facts of the case are identical. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The denial of benefit of Notification No. 11/97-Cus. dated 01-Mar-1997 to the PU coated sheets imported by the appellant due to discrepancies in test reports and interpretation of conditions of the notification.

Summary:

Issue 1: Test report verification and interpretation of Notification No. 11/97-Cus.
The appeals were filed against the Commissioner (Appeals) order denying the benefit of the notification to the PU coated sheets imported by the appellant. Despite discrepancies in the test reports and failure to verify if the goods matched those in the report, the Commissioner proceeded to examine the matter based on the conditions of the notification. The appellant argued that since the CLRI report could not be relied upon, the Commissioner should not have proceeded further. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the notification does not require an End Use certificate. The Tribunal found that a similar matter had been decided before, observing that the circular requiring an End Use Certificate could not be applied retrospectively. As the imports were made prior to the circular, the actual user condition could not be imposed to deny the concessional rate of duty. Hence, following the precedent, the appeals were allowed.

This judgment highlights the importance of verifying test reports and correctly interpreting the conditions of notifications in customs cases, ensuring that circulars are applied prospectively and not retrospectively, and considering judicial pronouncements on similar issues for consistent decisions.