Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Now we will take up the contention of Revenue that since Ascorbic Acid is a pharmaceutical product, it is not used in the industry of manufacturing of soda ash and hence the same cannot be allowed as input. According to Revenue as per DGFT policy circular dated 24.3.2009, only those imports are allowed which are actually used or are capable of being used in manufacturing of export product and since ascorbic acid is a pharmaceutical product it is not used in the industry of manufacturing of soda ash and hence the same cannot be allowed as input against corrosion inhibitor. We have also gone through the decisions viz. SVA Udyog Viniyog Ltd. (supra) and Mewati &Co (supra) as cited by learned Authorised Representative in support of his submission. We find that the said cases deal with different kind of Licences and DFIA. Moreover, in a nut shell the principles enunciated in the above cases is that the transferee is also required to be bound by the conditions of the license; one cannot go beyond the terms of the license for import of goods and only the goods which are covered by the subject license can be imported. We are of the opinion that all these principles have been followed in the instant case. In the instant matter it is the specific case of the importer that they are importing the goods in accordance with the license which has been transferred in their favour by M/s. Tata Chemicals Ltd. Policy under which Licence has been issued gives allowance to import items which are capable of being used. Therefore, we are of the view that no conditions have been violated by the respondents in the instant case. We have also gone through the Notification No.40/2006-Cus dated 1.5.2006 as well as the DGFT policy circular dated 24.3.2009 as produced by the learned Authorised Representative. According to us, a product which is 'Corrosion Inhibitor' and is imported under a DFIA licence, is eligible for benefit of Notification No. 40/2006. Our attention has been drawn to the transferred DFIA and it was pointed out that the actual use of the imported goods has not been contemplated in DFIA. The DFIA allows any input actually used or capable of being used in the export product. Our attention has also been drawn towards Circular No. 46/2007, dated 20.12.2007 issued by the CBEC, wherein it has been clarified that except for the items specified in paragraph 4.55.3 of the Handbook of Procedures, Vol.I 2004-09, in all other cases a correlation between the inputs under import with those used in the exported product is not required to be established and that clearance under DFIA scheme may be allowed if other conditions of the scheme and Customs notification are fulfilled. In this case, the item under import does not figure in the paragraph 4.55.3 and is of non- sensitive nature, therefore 'Ascorbic Acid' can be imported under the said DFIA licence. In a somewhat similar matter, this Tribunal in the case of Global Exim vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Mumbai; 2010 (253) E.L.T.417 (Tri.- Mum.) allowed the benefit of Notification No. 40/2006 and held that compliance to technical specifications of the imported material are not required in the case of material not covered by para 4.55.3. Board Circular No.16/2006 dated 9.5.2006 also clarified that only for the items specified in paragraph 4.55.3 of the Handbook of Procedures, correlation is required. Therefore Revenue ought to have taken a liberal view and benefit of Notification No. 40/2006 should not have been denied if other conditions are satisfied. Such licenses are issued to the exporter under the export incentive schemes to boost the export and to earn the foreign exchange. The whole scheme of DFIA is to allow duty free imports against exports. Denial of the benefit under the scheme on unsubstantiated and technical reasons, would defeat the very purpose of the scheme and would amount to denial of substantial benefit. This is more so when the respondents have invested huge sums of money in purchasing such licenses. The submission of learned Authorised Representative that the Ascorbic Acid does not satisfy the definition of "material" as appeared in the Notification No.40/2006 since 'Ascorbic Acid' is not actually used in the manufacture of Soda Ash is also untenable. Our attention has been drawn by the learned counsel to the DGFT Policy Circular No.72 dated 24.03.2009 which says that the import of duty free inputs, which are actually used or capable of being used in the export product is permissible. Thus the actual use of the duty free imported goods is not mandatory. According to us the definition of 'material' has to be read in the context of the scheme of the Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) in the Foreign Trade Policy. In view of the discussions in earlier paragraphs Ascorbic Acid is clearly capable of being used in the manufacture of soda ash. The definition of word 'materials' in terms of notification No.40/2006 exempts raw material, components, intermediates, consumables, catalysts and parts which are required for manufacture of resultant product. The word used is 'required' and not 'actually used'. The contention of the Revenue that if a material is not used in the export product, neither the same can be considered to be required for manufacture of export product nor can it be granted the duty exemption under the said notification, is also misplaced. We are in complete agreement with the finding of the learned commissioner that once the license is transferred by endorsing transferability by the licensing authorities, customs have no reason to go beyond the license and sit in judgment. The importer (respondent herein) need not have to prove the nexus between the imported goods and inputs used in the export product, so long as the imported product is covered under the description of the license. One has to see only if the imported goods are capable of being used in the export product. In view of this, we are of the opinion that in the instant case, Ascorbic Acid is capable of being used as corrosion inhibitor in the manufacture of Soda Ash and it is irrelevant whether it is actually used or not in the export product. In the result, we find that the respondents are entitled to avail the benefit of Notification No.40/2006-Cus. We have gone through the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay in the matter of USMS Safforn Company Inc-2016 (344) E.L.T. 161 (Bom.) which has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondent, in which the Hon'ble High Court has held that import of duty free Saffron is permissible against the DFIA issued for export of assorted confectionary and biscuits against the inputs food flavour and rejected the contention of the Revenue that saffron cannot be imported as saffron was not actually used in the manufacture of biscuits.