Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Case No. 208 M/s. Condor Foorwear (India) Limited Surat NC.11/10 dt. 11.06.2009 F.No. 1/84/162/42/AM10-DES-V Request for import against Advance Authorisation No. 5210021658 dt.

06.06.2007 - under Para 4.7 of HBP (Vol 1) 2004-2009 Decision: The Committee considered the case as per agenda and along with other relevant papers and heard Sh. Rakesh Adnani, Director and Sh. Surendra Gandhi, an authorized representative of the firm, who appeared for personal hearing before NC. They explained the case along with relevant papers and sample of the export item. In this case advance authorization in question was issued on 06.06.2007 to the applicant firm and input output norms were ratified by norms Committee by allowing the inputs as per S1ON at S.No.A-3541. In this case firm imported Synthetic cloth for Uppers (Non Woven/ Woven /Knitted/ Laminated with PVC/PU) HSW-KN06B-LP. The Committee felt that as per SION, A-3541, it is clearly specified that the import item viz., Synthetic cloth for Uppers (Non Woven/Woven /Knitted/Laminated with PVC/PU) and Synthetic cloth for Insole (Non Woven/Woven/Knitted/Laminated with PVC/PU) are to be used for Uppers & Insole of the export product Synthetic Slippers/Sandals with PU Sole of all sorts irrespective of ITO (HS) Code, It has been observed that description of import item was classified under ITC (HS) Code 5903 10 90 with effect from the date of issue of the advance authorization. It was observed that in this case, the S1ON permitted the import item as per Bill of Entry and description covered under ITO (HS) Code 5903 10 90. The sample submitted by the firm has a clear view that item's description allowed under SION at S.No.A-3541 are classified under ITC (HS) Code 3920 49 00 instead of ITC (HS) Code 5903 10 90. Thus, Committee after detailed deliberations in consultation with the representatives of technical authorities present in the meeting felt that in both the heading of ITC (HS) code, the description of item of import and export are the same as per relevant SION, the condition of matching of ITC (HS) Code does not arise here. Hence, in this case, it is clarified that change in the ITC (HS) Code has no bearing on the benefits to be given under advance authorization issued under Para 4.7 of HBP." From the above, it is apparent that as far as the benefit of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus is concerned, the classification of goods specified in SION norms is not relevant unless it is specifically mentioned in the SION norms. The committee at Ministry of Commerce has also clarified that any change in the ITC (HS) Code has no bearing on the benefits to be given under advance authorization issued under Para 4.7 of HBP.

5.2 The Revenue has relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Vikram Overseas (supra). It is seen that the facts in the said case are significantly different. In the said case, the amendment was substantial in nature whereas in the present case it is of procedural in nature. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Bhilwara Spinners Limited vs. UOI - 2011 (267) ELT 49 (Bom.) distinguished the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Vikrant Overseas (supra) on the ground that license was amended with a clear intention of having a retrospective effect. In the instant case the committee has clarified that any change in the ITC (HS) Code has no bearing on the benefits to be given under advance authorization issued under Para 4.7 of HBP. In this circumstance, we hold that amendment made to the license will have a retrospective effect and the benefit of the notification cannot be denied on the ground that the classification of the goods did not match the classification specified in the advance license as long as the description of the goods matches with that prescribed in the license.