2004 (1) TMI 600 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus. denied by adjudicating authority.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 80/70-Cus. regarding replacement of defective goods.
- Applicability of the notification to goods imported by traders.

Analysis:
1. The appellants appealed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after the adjudicating authority denied them the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus. The appellants claimed this benefit based on importing an electric pump in lieu of a defective one previously imported.

2. The appellants argued that the electric pump they imported was not accepted by their customer, and they exported the same pump for replacement. The supplier then sent a new electric pump, leading the appellants to believe they were entitled to the benefit of the notification. However, the Revenue contended that the notification applies to replacement of defective individual personal property, not to imports by traders.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the notification's language, which exempts articles imported for the replacement of defective articles that are private personal properties of the importer. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal clarified that personal properties in the notification refer to individual personal properties of the importer. As the goods in this case were not imported as individual personal properties but for trading purposes, the appellants were deemed ineligible for the notification's benefit.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the benefit of Notification No. 80/70-Cus. is reserved for defective articles imported as personal properties of the individual importer. Since the goods in question were imported for trading purposes, the appellants did not meet the criteria outlined in the notification for duty exemption.