1989 (8) TMI 304 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the order denying the benefit of Notification No. 49/78 for imported equipment meant for Vickers Hardness Test.
- Interpretation of the import policy of 1982-83 regarding the imported equipment.
- Analysis of the Notification No. 49/78 exemption criteria for machinery capable of performing Vickers Hardness Test.
- Consideration of whether the imported machinery's capability to perform other tests affects eligibility for the notification exemption.

Issue 1: Challenge to the order denying the benefit of Notification No. 49/78
The appellants challenged the order denying the benefit of Notification No. 49/78 for importing a Vickers Hardness Tester from West Germany. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) released the goods but denied the notification's benefit due to the machine's alleged capability to conduct tests other than Vickers Hardness Test. The appellants contended that they did not violate the import policy and imported the equipment solely for measuring Vickers Pyramid Number (VPN).

Issue 2: Interpretation of the import policy of 1982-83
The appellants argued that they complied with the import policy of 1982-83 by ordering the Vickers Hardness Tester under OGL, Appendix 2, Sl. No. 3(4). They asserted that the machine was intended only for Vickers Hardness Test and additional accessories required for other tests were not imported. The Collector (Appeals) referenced the CCCN Explanatory Notes, stating that the machine's design for multi-purpose use disqualifies it from the notification benefit.

Issue 3: Analysis of Notification No. 49/78 exemption criteria
The appellants relied on Notification No. 49/78, which exempted goods listed in Chapter 90 of the Customs Tariff Act, including Vickers Hardness testers, from excess ad valorem duty. They argued that since the machine could only perform Vickers Hardness Test without additional accessories, they were entitled to the notification's benefit. They cited legal precedents to support their interpretation of the notification's scope.

Issue 4: Impact of machinery's capability to perform other tests
The Departmental Representative contended that the imported machinery could perform functions beyond Vickers Hardness Test, as indicated in the machine's catalogue. However, the Tribunal held that the machine's ability to perform other tests does not disqualify it from the notification's exemption if it was primarily imported for Vickers Hardness Test. Relying on previous rulings, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the lower authorities erred in denying the benefit to the appellants based on the machine's additional capabilities.