The Hindu Business Line : 100% EOUs eligible for duty cuts on imported raw materials: HC

Chennai, July 25 The Madras High Court has held that the notification No 13/Customs-81 dated September 2, 1981 of the Union Ministry of Finance exempting from payment of customs duty the imported raw materials, components, packing materials, etc. for use in 100 per cent export-oriented activity was valid.

Accordingly, a Nellore-based unit for producing culture of prawns, with 100 per cent export-oriented status, was entitled for exemption in respect of items imported during the period 4-2-1994 to 21-12-1994.

Mr Justice K. Chandru, while allowing a writ petition from Waterbase Ltd, Nellore, praying for a direction to the Union Ministry of Finance and Assistant Commissioner of Customs (APPS) Group 7, Chennai, not to invoke 51 bank guarantees furnished to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs for clearing items of import, ruled that a harmonious reading of the notification would show that the petitioners were entitled for exemption for the period in question.

‘Well-founded contentions’

While asking the respondent to refund the amount encashed by invoking the bank guarantees, the judge held that the contentions raised by the petitioners were well-founded. Though the respondent in its counter-affidavit stated that notification No 196 of 1994 was not retrospective, that argument was not correct because the purpose of the said notification was to rescind the 1993 notification.

Even otherwise, paragraph 5 of the 1994 notification provided for a non-obstante clause by which the imported raw materials were liable for exemption by the said notification.

Notification tab

According to the petitioner, when they wanted to rely upon the 1981 notification for importing certain goods, the respondents placed reliance upon the 1993 notification for importing raw materials and demanded bank guarantee to the extent of 20 per cent of customs duty.

When it was pointed out that the 1993 notification did not make any change in that of the 1981, the respondents did not agree to the same and wanted to interpret the 1993 notification as if there was a change in the 1981 notification.

The petitioners contended that the respondents were giving an artificial meaning to the 1993 notification, which was not correct. The writ petition would stand allowed, the judge ruled.

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Shriram EPC sees big revenues from renewable energy sector in 2 years

Markets this week

‘A lot can be done on reform front in the remaining period’

FICCI submits agenda to PM to boost investments

Work on NHPC Teesta project to resume

HC issues notices to GIDC on SEZ

Industrial belt in Pune facing power shortage

‘Govt hopes to mop up more resources from service tax’

Sensex trips 500 points

Serial blasts shock Bangalore

Stress on organised growth of manufacturing sector

DoT offers sops to operators for rural rollout

100% EOUs eligible for duty cuts on imported raw materials: HC

Norms to calculate forex eased for EoUs facing export curbs