9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports under heading 9801 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and re-classified the imported goods under heading 8462.99; thereby differential duty of Rs. 88,06,135 was confirmed under section 18 (2) of Customs Act, 1962 besides confiscating the goods but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 15,00,000. A penalty of Rs. 10,00,000 was also imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by this order, the importer is in appeal before us. 2. M/s Kelvinator of India Ltd (since taken over by the appellant company) imported one 'Minister make Lamination Press' valued at Rs. 1,39,77,992 against bills of entry no.2666/06.1 2.93 on which duty of Rs. 48,92,298 was paid upon classification as per declaration. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Learned Counsel for appellant and Learned Authorised Representative. We take note that the contract is required to be registered, and the assessment of 'project imports' is required to be provisional and subject to final assessment within three months of the clearance of the last consignment in the contract. It is worthwhile extracting the relevant provisions of Project Import Regulations, 1986, viz., '5. Registration of contracts.- (1) Every importer claiming assessment of goods falling under the said heading no. 9801, on or before their importation shall apply in writing to the proper officer at the port where the goods are to be imported or where the duty is to be paid for registration of the contract contracts, as the case may be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acility of 'project imports' is liable to be denied if the imported goods did not yield substantial expansion. It is his contention that relocation precluded that desired outcome. We find from the records that the appellant has placed on record, in letter dated 26th October 2004 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, the circumstances of relocation and that the project had yielded substantial expansion as evident in the balance sheet for October 1995 to December 1996. It would, therefore, appear that the decision in re Tata Steel Ltd is not applicable in the present instance. The decision in re Jacsons Thevara upheld the action taken against the importer for having sought assessment as 'project import' when an agreement had alr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 75 and the dispute between Revenue and appellant is one of determination of classification under this head or the alternative of segregating the various components of the project under their respective classifications. The consequence of classification under 9801 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is the bundling of goods; and the conditions that are prescribed in the regulations are related to that bundling for increasing the production capacity of the economy. There is no condition other than import in that state for installation in that form. There is no allegation of disaggregation of the imported goods and, therefore, its possession by another entity does not detract from the principal objective of such bundled class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
