AKASH JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREV AMRITSAR AND COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PREV LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The applicant, who is setting up a joint venture with non-resident M/s Uniexcel Ltd. Far East International Plaza, Room No. 1206, No. 83, Loup Shah Guan Rd., Changning District New Town Centre, Shanghai, China-200336, has filed this application seeking advance ruling on three questions. In Annexure-l to the application, the applicant has stated that the non-resident is interested in setting up a knitting/textile unit in India and for this purpose he is interested in having a joint venture with the applicant who is a resident in India. The proposed unit requires consumption of Wool as raw material and therefore they are keen in taking the benefit of Customs Notification Nos. 38/96 and 63/94 for importing duty free wool from China from Gunji in Pithoragarh, Uttaranchal or Village Namgaya, Shipkila in Kinnaur District of H.P. The unit will be set up in Baddi, H.P. or in Haryana with an estimated investment of US $ 2 millions in machinery.

(2.) In his comments, the Commissioner has however, contended that the benefit of exemption Notification No. 38/96 is not admissible to the applicant who intends to import the wool as raw material for a knitting/textile unit. In support of his submission, the Commissioner has referred to para 2.13 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09, ITC Public Notice No. 33/92-97 dated 17.7.92 and ITC Public Notice No. 5/92-97(PN) dated 20.7.92 regulating the border trade across Indo-China border, Office Memorandum F.No. 2/9/2005-FT(NEA) dated 2.5.2005 clarifying that as per the MOU signed with China, the border trade is meant only for local residents of border on both the sides and permitting the import and export of identified items, Board's letter F.No. 554/02/2005 - L.C. dated 12.8.2005 clarifying that India's trade with China has been allowed as border trade and is meant only for Tribal communities living on either side of the border. It has therefore been submitted by the Commissioner that the duty free import of wool from China through Namgaya-Shipkila-Shipki Jui Jiuba land route is permissible only for the use of local residents and not for the commercial use of a manufacturing concern or for the trade in open market.

(3.) WE observe that the questions (b) & (c) are, in essence, to be treated as seeking applicability in general terms of the exemption Notification 38/96. The comments submitted by and on behalf of the Commissioner are primarily on the issue of whether the applicant is entitled to import through the notified Land Customs Stations and along the specific land routes from China. He has then read this aspect into the exemption Notification No. 38/96 without touching the question of general applicability of this Notification per se. Since the applicant has agreed and rightly so, to drop the question (a) being outside the jurisdiction of this Authority, we do not see any necessity to express our views on the submissions of the Commissioner.