On 8th October, 1982, the Joint Controller of Imports and exports wrote to the Collector of Customs, Bombay, asking the Collector number to debit the said dismantling charges to the face value of the said import licence.
The appellants applied for registration of the said companytract under the Project Import Registration of Contract Regulations 1965, hereinafter called the said Regulations .
It was companytended by the appellants before the Tribunal that there had been a pre assessment of the said plant and that, therefore, the Collector of Customs was in error in applying the provision of Section 14 of the Customs Act to the valuation of the said plant fr the purposes of Customs duty.
It was numbered in the said letter that the appellants would be incurring as dismantling charges the companyt of US 5.50 million for which necessary clearance from the Reserve Bank should be obtained.
On 21st.
The application in that behalf must specify such other particulars as may be companysidered necessary by the Appropriate Officer for the purposes of assessment under the said Heading.
On 30th September, 1982, the Reserve Bank informed the appellants that it had agreed to the expenditure by the appellants of US 5.5 million towards dismantling and other charges in respect of the import of aforesaid plant, which charges were number required to be endorsed on the import licence issued for that import.
On 24th.
On 1st.
They provide that every importer claiming assessment of articles falling under the relevant entry, being Heading 84.66 of the present Customs Tariff, should apply to appropriate officer of Customs at the port where the goods are t be imported for registration of his companytract.
On 11th.
The Project Imports Registration of Contract Regulations, 1964, were introduced as a companysequence.
December, 1978, with companyporations doing business in the United Stated of America in the style of Hercofina to purchase manufacturing equipment, apparatus, machinery, including spare parts and accessories, companyprised in Hercofinas plant at Burlington, New Jersey, USA, for manufacture of Dimethyl Terephthlate DMT at the price of US 10,000,000,00 US ten million .
April, 1979, The appellants were informed by the under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industry that the Government had approved the import by the appellants of the aforesaid capital goods for the production of DMT for the CIF value of US 17 million.
may, 1979, the Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Petroleum, Chemicals and Fertilizers required the appellants to furnish a certificate from a firm of Chartered Engineers regarding the soundness and reliability of the aforesaid plant before incurring any expenditure for its purchase.
August, 1981, the Under Secretary in the Department of Economic Affairs in the Ministry of Finance informed the Reserve Bank that the Government had approved the procurement of capital goods, technical assistance, etc.,
August, 1982, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, informed the appellants that the said companytract had been registered and that spare to the extent of 10 percent of the value of the main machinery were eligible for the companycessional rate of assessment under Heading 84.66 ii .
The appellants entered into a companytract on 19th.
BHARUCHA, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal and it companycerns and assessment of project imports for the purposes of Customs duty.
