2003 (7) TMI 541 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Export and Import Policy.
2. Requirement of a license for the imported goods.
3. Interpretation of the term "consumer durables" in relation to the imported goods.
4. Applicability of Public Notice No. 32-ITC(PN)92-97 to the case.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the classification of imported goods under the Export and Import Policy. The goods, lids of bottles with attached plastic brushes for nail polish, were initially classified under heading 392690 09.90 by the department. However, it was argued that the correct classification should be under heading 392350 00.10, which includes stoppers, lids, caps, and closures. The Tribunal agreed with this classification based on the functionality of the goods.

2. The issue of whether a license was required for the imported goods was also addressed. The department contended that a license was necessary for goods falling under heading 392350 00.10. However, the respondent argued that as an actual user, they were entitled to import the goods without a license under Public Notice No. 32-ITC(PN)92-97. The Tribunal accepted this argument, noting that the goods were considered consumer goods and fell within the scope of the public notice.

3. The interpretation of the term "consumer durables" was crucial in determining the licensing requirements for the imported goods. The Tribunal considered the definition of consumer goods prior to and after the 1992 amendment. While bottles containing nail polish may not be durable goods in the traditional sense, they were deemed consumer goods under the amended definition, including accessories and components. This interpretation influenced the decision regarding the necessity of a license for the imported goods.

4. The applicability of Public Notice No. 32-ITC(PN)92-97 was a key factor in the judgment. The notice allowed the import of accessories, components, parts, and spares of consumer durables without a license under certain conditions. The respondent's status as an actual user and the specific provisions of the public notice supported their argument for importing the goods without a license. The Tribunal found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal based on these considerations.