Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Notification No. 80 of 1995 exempts from payment of duty raw materials, components, intermediates, consumerables, computer software and parts required for manufacture of export products. It is the Department's contention that it is therefore, only those materials which are actually required for manufacture of the exported products which will get the benefit of the notification. Hence the reasoning in the appeal proceeds, the goods imported by the respondent, which do not tally in respect of denierage with the goods used in the exported material will not get the benefit of the Notification. We have to note the distinction between the phraseology used in the Notification No. 80 of 1995 and that used in Notification No. 47 of 1988. The latter Notification granted exemption to goods which tally in quality, descriptin and technical characteristics with the goods used in the export products. The Commissioners of Customs had considered the question of verification of the nexus between the exported and imported goods at a conference in October, 1995. They noted that in regard to the applicability of the Notification 202 of 1992, Board had issued Circulars Nos. 4 of 1993 and 4 of 1995, which stipulated that the goods imported should be those which could have been used in the export products i.e. "The goods of a kind which are commercially known to be used for export products and are covered by the description inputs in the licences." It also stated that the Customs should not think of going into minute details of the inputs used in the export details, and that flexibility can be provided in respect of denierage of yarn upto the level where there is no change in the basic and additional goods. The Circular No. 4 of 1993, dated 4th March, 1993, of the Board provided that where licences had been transferred by the Office of the Director General, Foreign Trade, a close nexus should not be sought to be established with reference to quality and specification of the inputs vis-a-vis export products. The same reasoning finds expression in the decision in NITCO Marbles and Grannite. The Bench held in Paragraph 4, that when the export is made under a DEC, the documents are first scrutinised by the Customs who after being satisfied make necessary entries relating to export. Subsequently after audit of this part of the book by the Customs, the PGFT, on being satisfied, makes an endorsement regarding the transferability of the licence. It is on the basis of this endorsement that the licence is permitted to be transferred and the transferee of the licence entitled to duty free import. Hence the conclusion that once a licence and eligibility to export has been examined twice, by different authorities, the Importer cannot be required to prove once again eligibility to duty free of the import of the permitted goods.