CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
LAJJA RAM, S.S. KANG, JJ.
Gujarat Communications and Electronics Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Customs, Bombay -Respondent
Final Order No. C/55/98-B2 Appeal No. C/620/93-B2, C/55 of 1998, C/620 of 1993
Decided On : 23-12-1997
S.N. Ojha
Per Lajja Ram:
In this appeal filed by M/s Gujarat Communications and Electronics Ltd. (a Government of Gujarat Enterprise), the short point for our consideration is, whether the amending notification no. 262/92-cus dated 27.8.1992 will be applicable to the electronic components already imported and in respect of which the bill of entry had been filed on 27.7.1992. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, after analysing the amendment made in the original notification no. 162/90-cus dated 30.3.1990 held that the exemption with regard to the goods imported under bill of entry dated 27.7.1992 had to be determined with reference to the effective duty of customs as on the date of the bill of entry i.e. 27.7.1992.
2. The matter was fixed for hearing on 23.12.1997. The appellants have prayed for decision on merits. In their memo of appeal, they have submitted that the import licence was issued to them on 23.9.1992 and that the import licence was valid for the goods already arrived/shipped. They have further submitted that they had cleared the goods on 4.11.1992. On these grounds, they had pleaded that the benefit of amending notification no. 262/92-cus dated 27.8.1992 should be available to the goods in question, although the relevant bill of entry was dated 27.7.1992.
3. We have heard Shri S.N. Ojha, JDR, and have gone through the facts on record.
4. Under notification no. 162/90-cus dated 30.3.1990 raw-materials and components required for the manufacture of the goods specified in the table annexed to that notification were exempted from the payment of customs duty when imported into India by a manufacturer of the final products for supply to a 100% export oriented undertaking or an unit within a free trade zone. This exemption was subject to the various conditions named in the notification. This notification was amended from time to time and we are concerned with the amendment made by notification no. 262/92-cus dated 27.8.1992. Under this amending notification serial No. 8 was inserted in the table annexed to the original notification no. 162/90-cus. Serial No. 8 related to any other item as may be specified by a Public Notice issued in pursuance of sub-para (iii) of para 56 of Export and Import Policy 1st April, 1992-31st March, 1997, published vide Public Notice of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce No. 1-ITC (PN) 92-97 dated the 31st March, 1992. The appellants have pleaded that the rate of customs duty with regard to the goods already imported and in respect of which the bill of entry had been filed on 27.7.1992, should be determined in the light of the amendment made on 27.8.1992. Their main argument is that the import licence dated 23.9.1992 was valid for the goods already arrived/shipped.
5. We find that for exemption from the payment of customs duty, the exemption notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 had been issued. The import licence is with regard to the conditions under which the imports are allowed. The import licence is not an exemption notification. Exemption from the payment of customs duty had to be regulated in terms of the valid exemption notification as on the relevant date. For the purposes of the rate of customs duty, the relevant date is the date of the bill of entry. In this case, the bill of entry is dated 27.7.1992 and the rate of customs duty under the customs tariff read with any applicable exemption notification has to be determined as on that date. As the amending notification is dated 27.8.1992 and the date of the bill of entry for the purposes of determining the rate of duty is 27.7.1992, we consider that the view taken by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) did not suffer from any infirmity.
6. The amending notification extended the area of exemption to new situations and to new goods. The amending notification was not of a procedural nature, but extended exemption in substantive areas. We, therefore, consider