9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (1) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons, 1965. The original assessment authority refused registration of the contract on the ground that the ITC licence did not bear the Project Import endorsement as required by para 177(1) of the Hand Book of Import Export Procedures AM 1985. On appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) respondents herein succeeded. Hence this appeal before the Tribunal by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The lower appellate authority has observed relying on para 177(2) of the aforesaid Hand Book that the proper authority to decide whether a particular import is eligible to the concessional rate of customs duty as project import is the Customs authority. Such authority may allow the benefit of concessional duty, where permissible even without the endor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement, mentioned supra, related to the main issue of modernisation . The Tribunal s observation on the question of endorsement on the import licence was in the nature of obiter dicta and therefore, cannot have any precedent value. The main issue, according to the grounds in the appeal memorandum is that in the case of conflict between the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations and the provisions of the Handbook of the Import Trade (Control) authorities precedence will have to be given to the former since the basic issue involved is of assessment and not of import licence. 3. The, respondents, on the other hand, have reiterated the observations of the Collector (Appeals) and have sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence has been produced, the learned advocate has submitted that the coffee curing is not a S.C.heduled industry covered by the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 (IDRA) and therefore, there was no need of an industrial licence from the DGTD, as observed in the order-in-original or as envisaged in the Project Import Regulations. The Regulations referred to in the appeal memo are only procedural in nature and are applicable only in those cases where an industrial licence is required in terms of IDRA. He has relied apart from the Tribunal decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement on another decision of the Tribunal on BHEL v. C.C reported in 1989 (42) E.L.T. 255. 4. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deny the benefit of Tariff Heading 84.66. 4.1. We also do not find anything in the Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 [sub-regulation 3(a) and 3(c)] to indicate that there must be an industrial licence necessarily from the DGTD before the benefit of Tariff Heading 84.66 could be given to an importer. Naturally where DGTD does not come into the picture at all as in this case on account of coffee industry, not being a scheduled industry, the question of production of an industrial licence does not arise. There is, however, evidence on record that Coffee Board as a sponsoring authority had recommended both to the ITC licence (should be authorities Ed.) and the Customs authorities for allowing import as a projec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
