Punjab State Sports Council Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the issue in dispute in the above appeal is the admissibility of the benefit of duty exemption in terms of notification 109/94-cus., dated 13-7-1994 in respect of material for laying synthetic athletic track imported by the appellants herein.3. the notification exempts synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces falling under heading 95.06 of the first schedule to the customs tariff act, 1975 when imported under the scheme for laying synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces. the goods in question are compounded rubber in sheets and are correctly held to fall for classification under customs tariff heading 4005.99, since the goods are not in the nature of synthetic tracks classifiable under cta, heading 9506.99 the exemption benefit cannot be extended to them. the reliance placed by the learned counsel on the circular no. 70/2002-cus., dated 25-10-2002 is misplaced. the circular clarifies that raw materials for laying synthetic athletic track are eligible for duty exemption under notification no. 146/94-cus., dated 13-7-1994 since they can be considered as sports requisite covered by serial no. 1 of the table annexed to notification 146/94 or alternatively they would be covered as consumables relating to sports goods, sports equipments and sports requisites covered at serial no. 1.4. the notification with which we are concerned in the present case grants exemption only to synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces falling under heading 95.06 and does not extend to either sports requisites or consumables thereto. in the light of the above discussion we hold that the benefit of exemption under notification 109/94 is not available to the appellants in respect of the imported goods, uphold the demand of rs. 1,59,21,909/- + rs. 5,320/- (this amount was confirmed for failure to re-export the equipments for installation within a period of six months from the date of importation as stipulated in the notification, and the appellants' plea that failure to re-export within the stipulated period was not due to their fault cannot be accepted in the face of the language of the notification) and reject the appeal.

Judgment:
1. The issue in dispute in the above appeal is the admissibility of the benefit of duty exemption in terms of Notification 109/94-Cus., dated 13-7-1994 in respect of material for laying synthetic athletic track imported by the appellants herein.

3. The notification exempts synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces falling under Heading 95.06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported under the scheme for laying synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces. The goods in question are compounded rubber in sheets and are correctly held to fall for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 4005.99, Since the goods are not in the nature of synthetic tracks classifiable under CTA, Heading 9506.99 the exemption benefit cannot be extended to them. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel on the Circular No. 70/2002-Cus., dated 25-10-2002 is misplaced. The circular clarifies that raw materials for laying synthetic athletic track are eligible for duty exemption under Notification No. 146/94-Cus., dated 13-7-1994 since they can be considered as sports requisite covered by Serial No. 1 of the table annexed to Notification 146/94 or alternatively they would be covered as consumables relating to sports goods, sports equipments and sports requisites covered at Serial No. 1.

4. The notification with which we are concerned in the present case grants exemption only to synthetic tracks and artificial surfaces falling under Heading 95.06 and does not extend to either sports requisites or consumables thereto. In the light of the above discussion we hold that the benefit of exemption under Notification 109/94 is not available to the appellants in respect of the imported goods, uphold the demand of Rs. 1,59,21,909/- + Rs. 5,320/- (this amount was confirmed for failure to re-export the equipments for installation within a period of six months from the date of importation as stipulated in the notification, and the appellants' plea that failure to re-export within the stipulated period was not due to their fault cannot be accepted in the face of the language of the notification) and reject the appeal.