9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s as many as five conditions for availing the concession. 3. The prayer in W.P. Nos. 15315 to 15317 of 1990 is set out below : - "...to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent culminating in his Order No. 559/342/90 Gr. 5A dated 3-9-1990 and quash the said impugned Order No. 559/342/90, dated 3-9-1990 of the Third Respondent and direct the respondents to extend to the Petitioner's goods imported under the Bill of Entry No. 029525 dated 19-7-1990 the benefit of Notification 45/85 Cus., dated 28-2-1985..." The prayer in W.P. No. 15316/90 : "...to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Third Respondent culminating in his Order No. S/1/129/90-BACE S. 20, dated 27-7-1990 and quash the said impugned Order No. S/1/129/90-BACE S. 20, dated 27-7-1990 of the Third Respondent and direct the Respondents to extend to the petitioner's goods imported under the Bills of Entry No. 017889, dated 5-7-1990, 018554, dated 12-7-1990 and 019425, dated 18-7-1990 the benefit of Notification 45/85-Cus., dated 28-2-1985 ... ......." The prayer in W.P. No. 15317/90 : "....to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ived at in the Tariff Conference of the Collectors of Customs, the Authorities started to take a different view in spite of the Certificates issued by the DGTD. According to the petitioners, the conclusion reached at the Collectors' Conference on the scope of Notification 45/85 was to the effect that inasmuch as no definition was to be found to the term 'horological machine' in the tariff of the Notification, the benefit of the Notification should be given only to machines which are specially designed for the watch industry and such benefit should not be extended to machines which can be used for other purposes as well. On that view, the Customs Authorities declined to extend the concessional rate of duty to the machines imported by the petitioner during the years 1989 and 1990. The machines imported during the years 1989 and 1990 were : "watch case turning machine, copy milling machines, electro plating equipment, vacuum hardening furnace, annealing furnaces, drilling machines, gear cutter grinder, transfer printing machine, jewelling tool, electric screw driver and soldering station". As already pointed out, for importation of these machines, necessary Certificates have been issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and circumstances of the case. They have to verify all the relevant documents at the time of the assessment and ensure that all the conditions laid down therein are complied with in toto by the importers who wish to avail the benefit of the notification. The DGTD Certificate is only in the nature of recommendation for concessional assessment. The applicability of the Customs notification for the goods imported, vests with the Customs authorities only." Further, the respondents have taken a stand that the Exemption Notifications are required to be construed strictly according to the words and expressions used therein and also along with their associated conditions. The respondents have stated that the petitioners have failed to satisfy the Department that the imported goods fall under the category of 'horological machine'. The respondents, in fine, have justified the rejection of concessional rate of duty, and consequently the orders passed by them levying normal rate of duty. 8. Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, placing heavy reliance on a judgment of the Bombay High Court in Bombay Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Appellate Collector of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods have been imported by such importer under a programme duly approved by the Industrial Adviser or the Addition al Industrial Adviser in the Directorate of Technical Development or the Industrial Adviser in the Office of the Development Commissioner (Small Scale Industries) of the Ministry of Industry, for the manufacture of assembly of the said wrist watches or parts thereof; (iii) the importer shall produce a certificate from a duly authorised officer of the Directorate General of Technical Development to the effect that the goods in respect of which the exemption is claimed are such as are not manufactured in India; (iv) the importer shall, within such period as the Assistant Collector of Customs may specify in this behalf, produce a certificate from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the factory manufacturing or assembling such wrist watches or parts thereof is situated, to the effect that the said goods have been installed in the importer's own factory for the manufacture or assembly of the said wrist watches or parts thereof; and (v) the importer shall execute a bond in such form and for such sum as may be specified by the Assistant Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view in the following words : - "Now, in the present case, it is not disputed on behalf of the Respondents by Mr. C.J. Shah that the Petitioners have complied with the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Notification dated 1st March 1968, read with the public Notice dated 25th September 1968, being Exh. C, to the affidavit in rejoinder, dated 29th June, 1973. That is to say that it is not disputed on behalf of the Respondents that the petitioners have duly complied with all the conditions necessary for the grant of the exemption under the Notification dated 1st March 1968, being Exh. A to the petition. What is urged on behalf of the Respondents is that on a proper interpretation of Exh. A to the petition, the exemption is only granted where such chemicals are used for what is termed in the affidavit in reply dated 10th July, 1970 as 'chemical intermediates' for manufacture of insecticides, pesticides and fungicides, and that the certificates issued by the Director General of Technical Development, Government of India, are not conclusive. This argument on behalf of the Respondents is only to be sought to be rejected for the simple reason that the exemption Notification date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification, Exh. A to the Petition, dated 1st March 1968. Once the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the said Notification are complied with, it was obligatory upon him to grant the exemption thereunder. He was not entitled to sit in judgment over the certificates produced by the petitioners and although an opportunity was given to him to state by an affidavit to be filed as to what the Respondents had to say in connection with the certificates furnished, he has not chosen to do so and has without any material on record refused the exemption to the petitioners. In my opinion, it was erroneous on the part of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, not to grant the exemption to the petitioners, once the conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Notification, Exh. A, dated 1st March 1968, were complied with, I am not, in the present case, concerned with the question as to whether in fact, the Notification applies only to the use of chemicals for agricultural purposes as sought out to be made on behalf of the Respondents. It is quite clear on a plain interpretation of Exh. A, that the exemption is bound to be granted once the conditions mentioned therein are complied with and which in fact is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
