9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (11) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported were not registered with the Customs House before the Proper Officer of Customs permitted the clearance for home consumption. In fact, that is almost the only reason for which the Asst. Collector rejected their request for reassessment of the goods under 84.66. The operative part of the Assistant Collector s order on the last page immediately preceding Order reads as under : In the instant case, the importers approached the Custom House for registration of contract only after clearance of the said machine on merits and they were informed vide this office letter dated 22-12-1977 that the registration of contract for the items already cleared before registration was not permissible. It is not the case as if the appellants failed to register the contract before clearance of the goods merely on account of either lethargy or ignorance of law or the like. The appellants have filed an Affidavit of their Project Officer. He states that he made oral enquiries with the Customs House (the dealing Appraiser) and he was informed that no such registration can be done unless the I.T.C. Licence carries a specific endorsement from the Licence Issuing Authority that The goods impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Imports made by the Government Agency no Import Trade Control Licence shall be necessary but the application in their case shall be accompanied by the list of items, for which clearance of the Directorate General of Technical Development had been taken and a certificate from the Head of the Project Authority to the effect that the items to be imported are covered by the rules. 5. As far as sub-regulation (2) is concerned, it does not really require any attestation or endorsement of l.T.C. Authorities. If there is any doubt on this, 1 will reproduce below the said sub-regulation (2) in an edited form as I read it. (2) (i) The importer shall apply as soon as may be after he has obtained the l.T.C. Licence for the import of articles covered by the contract; (ii) In the case of imports made by the Central Government any State Government, Statutory Corporation, Public Body or Government Undertaking run as a Joint Stock Company (such application shall be made) as soon as clearance from the D.G.T.D. has been obtained. 6. Coming to sub-regulation (4), it is the following words immediately before the proviso clause thereof that have led to the present Custom House practice of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd for a long time there is no reason for me to uphold that practice when it is clearly outside those regulations or the requirement of Tariff Heading 84.66. The Custom House must insist on production of an I.T.C. Licence. On the basis of the importers Project Reports and I.D.R.A Licences and the Import Licences, the Custom House must and can itself take a decision whether the contracts which the appellant seeks to register are contracts of a kind which could be called the initial setting up of a Unit or the substantial expansion of an existing Unit of a specified industrial plant...... etc. I can definitely fore see why the Custom House might have initially insisted on those endorsements by the I.T.C. Authorities. If I put myself in the chair of the Appraiser or the Asstt. Collector and If I take upon myself the responsibility to satisfy myself that the goods covered by the contract which a prospective importer wants to be registered with me, I would have to scrutinise his Project Report, his I.D.R.A. Licence, his Import Licence, Technical feasibility report forming part of the Project Report etc. That is a voluminous and time consuming jobs. As against that the I.T.C. Licences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e interpretation put by the Custom House on sub-regulations (2) (4) of Regulation 3 is unwarranted. Having observed this I will now sum up the extra evidence made available by the appellants. 11. It is a peculiar feature of the functioning of Governmental Agencies, avoidable in many cases with an objective approach, and yet to some extent unavoidable also that whole machine functions like so many different gears or cogs toothed or engaged into each other. A will not do something unless B gives a no objection. B would not give the no objection unless C recommends it. C would not recommend it without getting a clearance from D. D would not give the clearance unless he gets some information from E. Different terminologies could be found to avoid repetition and far more agencies than A to E can be brought in, in actual practice and not by hypothetical examples. I have seen a Punjab State Electricity Board appeal where the different Agencies involved ran into two digits. There was the appellant Punjab State Electricity Board, the State Government, Ministry of Power, the Central Ministry of Power, the Central Electrical Authority, the D.G.T.D., the C.C.I. E., the cannalising Agenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dorsement as required by the appellants. All that however, came very much after the clearance of the goods. The appellant therefore clearly had two options. They could have either Warehoused the goods in terms of Section 49 and not in terms of Chapter IX, pending all these delays in getting the requisite licence endorsement (if they had not resorted to Section 49 warehousing, they would risk penal demurrages and chances of pilferrage). The option would carry with it the attendant delays in the set up and starting of the entire Project. The other alternative for the appellant was to clear the good without the benefit of Project Import Regulations. The choice or deciding factor between two options was the extra monetary stake involved. Somehow the appellants found that these stakes were not so high. After all even without the Project Import benefits the goods were being assessed under 84.37(1). The whole calculations went wrong only when having initially assessed under 84.37(1) the Custom House later found that the assessment was wrong, that sub-heading (2) of 84.37 was the correct assessment etc. 12. When appellants did in fact take all these steps at all stages to get the requis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
