ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (T)
1. M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, the respondent to this appeal imported unrefined glycerine claiming clearance in terms of value based advance licences obtained by transfer and claimed exemption under Notification 79/95. The DEEC pass book in question specified the exported product to be toothpaste. The department was of the view that the imported crude glycerine could not be used in the manufacture of toothpaste for which refined glycerine is required, proposed denial of the exemption under value based advance licence for the import. The importer waived issue of written notice and its written reply was considered and it was also heard in person. The Assistant Commissioner did not accept the contention put before him that it would utilize the facilities available in its factory to refine the glycerine and therefore the imported glycerine would be suitable for use in the manufacture of toothpaste. He therefore denied benefit of the Notification.
2. The importer appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the licence was obtained by the importer by transfer from the person whom it granted and that any condition specified in the licence in the Import Policy would not be binding upon the importer. He noted that the kind of glycerine was permitted for import in the licence. He noted that the licence permitted import of glycerine without any specification of quality or kind and held that the benefit of exemption could not be denied. This conclusion is challenged by the department in the appeal.
3. The departmental representative emphasizes strongly upon the provisions of the import policy, contained in the norms relating to import and expert. However, these are no binding upon the department in considering the admissibility of the notification no. They are to be taken into account by applicants while applying for licences and by the licensing authority in determining thequantity and nature of the goods to be permitted for import. Where the licence permits import of any goods, clearance cannot be denied on the ground that the licence is not issued in accordance with the provisions of the policy. That is the province of the licensing authorities, and not of the Customs. This in fact is what the Assistant Commissioner appears to have beendone.
4. The licences have been transferred. The condition in the notification requiring correlation between the imported goods and the export product would also not be applicable. The ground in the appeal relating to the statements by the persons who applied for the licence regarding the utilisation of the glycerine cannot be accepted for two reasons. Firstly they are being introduced for the first time. Secondly they are irrelevant in any case as it is not that person but the transferee who imported the goods.
5. The appeal is dismissed.