By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 16, 2015: THE appellant imported tennis court requisites and filed Bill of Entry classifying the goods under chapter heading 9506 claiming the benefit of notification 146/94-Cus. The department was of the view that the goods have not been classified properly and benefit of the notification is not admissible.

Notification 146/94 exempted goods namely sport goods, sport equipment, sport requisite on the condition that - (a) The said goods are imported into India by a National Sport Federation, under a certificate issued by the Sports Authority of India for use in a national or international championship or competition, to be held in India or abroad;

The Dy. Commissioner while upholding the charges of improper classification also denied the benefit of notification and demanded customs duty of Rs.6.55 lakhs.

The Commissioner (Appeals) held that benefit of notification No. 146/94-Cus dated 31/7/1994 is available only when the goods are imported into India by National Sports Federation under certificate issued by the Sport Authority of India. Inasmuch as since the goods were imported on behalf of the All India Tennis Association, the benefit of the notification is not available, the lower appellate authority held.

In appeal before the CESTAT, the primary argument of the importer is that a certificate was produced from the Sport Authority of India certifying that the goods have been imported by All India Tennis Association and are to be used in national/international competition; that the invoices and the bill of entry indicate the name of the importer as “M/s. Syncott International account of All India Tennis Association”. Moreover, the All India Tennis Association also gave a certificate to the Central Bank of India for opening LC with the supplier and stated in that letter that the All India Tennis Association is importing the goods, submitted the importer.

The AR stuck to the departmental stand.

After considering the submissions made by both sides, the Bench observed

++ We find that Tribunal in its order in the case of All India Tennis Association Vs. Commissioner allowed the benefit to raw material for synthetic track by considering it as a sport requisite and consequently admissible for exemption under notification (supra). The Tribunal while arriving at its decision considered Board Circular No. 70/02 dated 25/10/2002. Therefore, we hold that the Dy. Commissioner classified goods wrongly.

++ …whether in terms of above notification, All India Tennis Association can be considered as importer in the instant case. We would believe so because invoices as well as Bill of Entry clearly state that the goods are imported on the account of All India Tennis Association. A certificate has been issued by the apex Sports body in the country i.e. Sports Authority of India also certifying that import is being made by the All India Tennis Association. The LC which is opened also indicates that importer is the Tennis Association. There is no doubt that the All India Tennis Association has used the goods/material for their tennis court to be used in national/international competition. The definition of importer in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act reads as “(26) “importer”, in relation to any goods at any time between their importation and the time when they are cleared for home consumption, includes any owner or any person holding himself out to be the importer”. In the present case facts reveals that the All India Tennis Association is held to be the importer both by the appellant as well as the Association. Therefore the conditions of the Notification are met. The conditions of the notification being fulfilled, we held that benefit of notification 146/94 dated 13/7/1994 is admissible.

(See 2015-TIOL-2685-CESTAT-MUM)