9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (10) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommendation letter of the sponsoring authority. 2. Shri R.N. Bajoria, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the appellants were granted letter of intent for setting up of plant to manufacture 50000 MTs per year of high carbon ferro chrome/charge chrome along with a captive power plant as 100% Export Oriented Undertaking; that though they were allowed to import the capital goods duty free at the time of import under Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981, they were required to pay the customs duty on such goods at their depreciated value at the time de-bonding that is after the expiry of the period of export obligation; that under Heading 84.66 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, machineries including auxiliary eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ropriate order with regard to registration application tiled by them. Learned Senior Counsel, further, mentioned that the Deputy Commissioner under Adjudication Order No. 54 of 1999 dated 5-10-1999 rejected their application on the ground that production of recommendatory letter from the sponsoring authority was necessary for the purpose of registration of the project contract and same had not been produced by them; that Commissioner (Appeals) also rejected their Appeal under the impugned order holding that it was mandatory for them to submit recommendation of the sponsoring authority to get their contract registered. 3. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the contention of the Adjudicating Authority is that when the goods are imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endently apply their mind for assessment of imports. He, further, contended that in the absence of any requirement under the Customs Tariff or the Project Import Regulations at the relevant time for production of sponsoring authority s recommendation, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in holding that such requirement is relevant to consider registration of the contract. He relied upon the decision in the case of Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. C.C., Ahmedabad, 1983 (12) E.L.T. 829 (Tribunal) = 1983 ECR 570-D (CEGAT) wherein it was held that failure to produce the project import endorsement on the import licence or recommendatory letter to that effect was not a bar to their availing of benefit of Heading 84.66 if otherw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i T.K. Kar, learned SDR, reiterated the findings as contained in Adjudication Order as well as in impugned order and emphasized that if the provisions of Project Import Regulations, 1965 are read with provisions of Para 177 of Handbook of Import-Export Procedures it would be apparent that in the case of goods imported under OGL, the recommendation of the sponsoring authority is a must for arriving at the decision where the goods fall under the category Project Import; that as the appellants did not submit the documents required by the Customs Department their contract has not rightly been registered for Project Import. 5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Regulation 3 of the Project Import (Registration of Contract) Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ara (3) clearly provides that where import machinery is allowed under OGL the benefit of concessional rate of duty may be allowed by Customs Officer on the recommendation of the sponsoring authority concerned. We do not find any substance in the submissions of the appellants that as 1965 Regulations does not specifically provide for submission of recommendatory letter from the sponsoring authority the Department is not entitled to ask for the same. If this argument of the appellant is accepted, sub-clause (5) of Regulations 3 which empowers the proper officer to obtain other document or other particulars in connection with the registration of the contract would be completely redundant since whenever any particular document is asked for, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... much as it has not been brought on record whether the appellants therein were asked by the proper officer under sub-clause (5) of Regulation 3 to produce the Project Import endorsement on their import licence or a recommendatory letter to that effect. In fact, the Departmental Representative had conceded that there was no legal requirement producing the endorsement on the import licence. In the present matter it is admitted fact that the Deputy Commissioner; while considering their request for registration of Project Import as per direction of the Tribunal, requested the appellants to produce the sponsoring authority s recommendation with attested list of proposed imported goods from the concerned Ministry. The appellants have now produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
