1993 (12) TMI 213 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether Bezel fitted with glass can be classified as a complete watch case or a part/component of a watch case.
2. Whether a valid import license was required for the clearance of the imported goods.
3. Whether the impugned goods were correctly confiscated and penalties imposed by the Asstt./Dy. Collector.
4. Whether the established practice of treating Bezel fitted with glass as a watch case was conclusive evidence.
5. Whether the import of Bezel fitted with glass required a license under the relevant import policy.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this case was whether "Bezel fitted with glass" constituted a complete watch case or merely a part/component of a watch case. The appellants argued that Bezel by itself is not a watch case and referenced technical specifications and common understanding to support their contention. The Tribunal agreed, finding that Bezel fitted with glass is not a complete watch case but only a part of a watch case, based on both technical literature and common understanding.

2. Another crucial issue was whether a valid import license was required for the clearance of the imported goods. The Collector, Customs (Appeals) had held that since Bezel fitted with glass was not specifically included in the Negative list, its import was permissible without an import license. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the import of spare/parts of consumer goods, including Bezel fitted with glass, was permitted without a license under the relevant policy.

3. The Tribunal also examined whether the impugned goods were correctly confiscated and penalties imposed by the Asstt./Dy. Collector. The Asstt./Dy. Collector had confiscated the goods and imposed penalties for lack of a valid import license. However, the Tribunal found that since no license was required for the import of Bezel fitted with glass, the confiscation and penalties were not justified.

4. The issue of established practice was raised, with the appellants arguing that Custom Houses had been allowing the import of Bezel fitted with glass without a license. The Tribunal noted that there was evidence to support both sides of the argument, leading to a finding that the matter being treated as an established practice was debatable.

5. Finally, the Tribunal concluded that no license was required for the import of Bezel fitted with glass under the relevant import policy. Therefore, the appeals were rejected, and the impugned orders were upheld in favor of the appellants, allowing the release of the goods in accordance with the relevant policy without the need for an import license.