9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy regarding imported goods being capital goods or parts of capital goods. Analysis: The appellant imported old and used Beams for Wrap Knitting Machine from Korea. The goods were examined to verify their condition, year of manufacture, and declared value. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were parts of capital goods, leading to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the goods were capital goods, not parts of capital goods, citing provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. The appellant's advocate referred to Para 2.17 and Para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy, emphasizing that the goods in question were capital goods, not restricted spares. The Chartered Engineer's report confirmed the critical role of the beams in the knitting process. The advocate also cited a previous judgment to support the argument that the restriction on refurbished spares did not apply to non-refurbished spares. The Respondent contended that the goods were restricted spares of capital goods and not refurbished or reconditioned, justifying the imposition of fines and penalties. However, after hearing both parties and examining the records, the judge concluded that the beams were separate equipment necessary for the knitting process, falling under the definition of capital goods in Para 9.12 of the Foreign Trade Policy. The judge ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the beams qualified as capital goods under the policy and were not in violation of customs laws. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. The judgment was pronounced on 28-8-2009.
|
