1984 (10) TMI 237 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the decision of the Tribunal regarding the classification of the stapling machine as an industrial machine is justified.
2. Whether the stapling capacity of the HD-10 type stapler disentitles it to be called an industrial stapling machine.
3. Whether the capability of the HD-10 stapler to be used in the industry is the main criteria.
4. Whether the import of industrial stapling machines HD-10 type by the applicant was in contravention of relevant policy.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal held that the stapler imported was not an industrial stapling machine based on the nature of the goods and other units manufactured by the same manufacturer. The Tribunal found that the article imported did not meet the criteria of an industrial stapling machine as per the I.T.C. Policy. The Tribunal concluded that this finding was purely factual, and no question of law was involved in this determination.

2. The applicant argued that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the stapler not being an industrial machine should be questioned based on legal principles cited from previous cases. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the issue at hand was a question of fact and not a question of law. The interpretation of the I.T.C. Policy was not in dispute as only industrial stapling machines were allowed for import.

3. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court case and a Madras High Court case to distinguish between questions of fact and questions of law. It was noted that the issue in the present case was purely a question of fact related to the nature of the stapler imported, and no legal conclusion arising from facts required determination. The Tribunal found that the nature of the stapler was clear and did not warrant further legal analysis.

4. The Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, stating that no question of law remained for reference to the High Court. The decision was based on the factual assessment of the nature of the stapler and its compliance with the I.T.C. Policy. The Tribunal concluded that the issue at hand did not involve a legal interpretation of the policy but rather a straightforward factual determination.