9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Whether Second-hand Reconditioned Radial Piston Pump imported in April 1996 qualifies as capital goods under Para 25 of the Export Import Policy April, 1992 to March, 1997. Analysis: The dispute in this case revolves around the classification of a Second-hand Reconditioned Radial Piston Pump imported by the appellants in April 1996. The question at hand is whether this pump, utilized in the manufacture of extrusion press, can be categorized as capital goods as per Para 25 of the Export Import Policy April, 1992 to March, 1997. The lower authorities contended that the imported goods do not directly or indirectly participate in the manufacturing process but merely serve as parts of the extrusion press. Consequently, the goods were confiscated, and penalties were imposed on the importers. Upon hearing arguments from both sides, it was established that the imported pump plays an essential role in the production of the extrusion press, thus indirectly contributing to the manufacturing process of the appellants' final products. Additionally, the pump itself is a complete article classifiable under Heading 8413.19, which encompasses machinery and mechanical appliances. Drawing from a precedent set in the case of Collector of Customs, Mumbai v. Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd., where centrifugal gas compressors were deemed capital goods due to their inseparable nature in the manufacturing plant, the Tribunal concluded that the imported goods in the present case, necessary for the extrusion press manufacturing process, should also be considered as capital goods. In light of the aforementioned legal reasoning and the precedent cited, the Tribunal ruled that no license was required for the import of the pump in question. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods and the penalties imposed on the importers were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
|
