2002 (3) TMI 639 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported goods are components for the manufacture of machines to be exported.
2. Whether the imported goods are covered by the advance license.
3. Entitlement to the benefit of the DEEC Scheme.
4. Applicability of Customs duty under Heading 9018.90.
5. Validity of the confiscation order and penalties imposed.
6. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 51/2000-Cus.
7. Admissibility of evidence and statements.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the imported goods are components for the manufacture of machines to be exported:
The Appellant argued that they imported components of Artificial Lung Ventilators with Integrated Anesthesia Unit to manufacture and export the final product. The components listed included semiconductor devices, cables, mechanical parts, and electro-mechanical parts. They detailed the manufacturing process, which involved assembling various modules and testing the final product. The Appellant contended that these processes amounted to manufacturing as per the definitions in the Export and Import Policy.

2. Whether the imported goods are covered by the advance license:
The Appellant claimed that they had obtained an Advance License covering all the imported components, and the DEEC passbook mentioned the supporting manufacturer. They argued that the imported components were covered by the license and that the first consignment had been cleared and exported under the DEEC Scheme. The Department, however, viewed the goods as fully assembled machines in SKD condition, not covered by the Advance License.

3. Entitlement to the benefit of the DEEC Scheme:
The Appellant submitted that the imported components were covered by the DEEC Scheme and were entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 51/2000-Cus. They argued that the definition of "manufacture" in the Policy included their processes and that the DGFT had clarified that the imported items were components for Artificial Lung Ventilators. They relied on various legal precedents to support their claim that the DGFT's clarification was binding on the Customs Authorities.

4. Applicability of Customs duty under Heading 9018.90:
The Department classified the imported goods under Heading 9018.90, which attracted Customs duty, arguing that the goods were fully assembled machines. The Appellant contended that the goods were components and not fully assembled machines, and thus should not be classified under this heading.

5. Validity of the confiscation order and penalties imposed:
The Adjudicating Authority had ordered the confiscation of the goods, imposed a fine of Rs. One Crore, and confirmed the Customs duty payable. The Appellant argued that the goods were accurately described in the Bill of Entry and other documents, and there was no act or omission on their part rendering the goods liable to confiscation. They also contended that no penalty should be imposed under Section 112 and Section 114A of the Customs Act as there was no suppression or willful misstatement.

6. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 51/2000-Cus:
The Appellant argued that the imported components were covered by the exemption Notification No. 51/2000-Cus, which exempts materials imported against an Advance License. They contended that the imported components met the conditions specified in the notification and thus were entitled to the exemption.

7. Admissibility of evidence and statements:
The Department relied on statements from various individuals, including Rajnish Verma and Harish Kotilia, who indicated that the imported goods were fully assembled machines. The Appellant argued that these statements were inadmissible as cross-examination was not allowed. They cited legal precedents to support their claim that reliance on such statements without cross-examination was impermissible.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the imported goods were components or fully assembled machines required factual verification. They noted the detailed manufacturing process provided by the Appellant and the need to examine whether the process amounted to assembly of a complete machine. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for reexamination, allowing for the involvement of a well-qualified technical person if necessary. The appeals were allowed by way of remand for fresh adjudication expeditiously.

← Previous Next →