1 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CUSTOM APPEAL NO. 40 OF 2010 The Commissioner of Customs (EP) Mumbai .. Appellant Versus Global Exim .. Respondent Mr. A. S. Rao for the appellant Mr. Prakash Shah i/by P.D.S. Legal for the respondent CORAM: V. C. DAGA, & S. J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATED: 07 th July, 2010 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the appeal. 2. The Revenue has raised following questions and has taken exception to the findings of the Tribunal: “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and the law the Tribunal is justified in granting the benefit of Notification No.40/2006-Cus, when the Respondent failed to satisfy the conditions of the Notification as well as para 4.55.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy. (b) Whether the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal is justified in holding that there is contradiction between the notification No.40/2006 and para 4.55.3 of the Foreign Trade Policy as both emphasize that the distinction, value and quality of the material imported 2 (i.e. inputs), are covered by DFIA in respect of the resultant product. The material permitted shall be of same quality, technical characteristics and specification as the material used in the resultant product.” 3. The factual matrix reveal that the respondent filed Bill of Entry dated 27.4.2009 for import of various types of bearings mentioned therein claiming duty free clearance under Customs Notification No. 40/2006 dated 1.5.2006 under DFIA Scheme. 4. According to the Revenue, a co-relation of technical characteristics, quality and specification is required to be established in respect of bearings sought to be imported that the bearings were actually used in the resultant product. 5. The Tribunal did not agree with the submissions made by the Revenue which were pressed into service by Revenue before the Tribunal and rejected them making following observations: “Having allowed export of motors with input specifications as bearings upto 50 mm bore, it may not be appropriate for the customs authorities to insist on technical specifications at the time of import of bearings. Further we also find that specifications provided in the DFIA authorisation have to be considered as sufficient for the customs purposes since the specifications are based on goods exported under a shipping bill. Therefore the responsibility to ensure that exporter gives a proper declaration while making exports in the shipping bill lies on both customs as well as DGFT authorities and having missed the bus at the time of export, it may not be correct to insist on specifications from a transferee of DIFA. Further we 3 also take note of the fact that DGFT is supposed to ensure that all the requirements have been fulfilled before allowing transferability.” 6. The above findings recorded by the Tribunal is based on the documentary evidence. Even during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue was unable to point out from any of the documents available on record that the import was not in accordance with the licence conditions or the specifications provided therein. The view taken by the Tribunal is in accordance with the law laid down by this Court in the case of A.V. Industries Vs. Union of India, 2005 (187)ELT 9 (Bom) to which one of us (V.C.Daga, J) is party. The Appeal is therefore dismissed for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs. ( S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.) (V. C. DAGA, J.)