9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the stapling machine imported by the appellant qualifies as an industrial stapling machine. 2. Whether the stapling capacity of the stapler disentitles it to be called an industrial stapling machine. 3. Whether the capability of the stapler to be used in the industry is the main criteria. 4. Whether the import of Industrial stapling machines HD-10 type was in contravention of the relevant policy. Analysis: Issue 1: The Tribunal held that the imported stapler was not an industrial stapling machine based on the nature of the goods imported and the description in the catalogue. It was established that only industrial stapling machines could be imported as per the I.T.C. Policy. The finding that the stapler was not an industrial machine was deemed factual, and no question of law arose. Issue 2: The applicant contended that the finding regarding the stapler not being an industrial machine was unjustified. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal clarified that the issue was purely factual and did not involve a question of law. The interpretation of the I.T.C. Policy was not in question as only industrial stapling machines were allowed for import. Issue 3: The Tribunal emphasized that the nature of the stapler imported was the crux of the decision, and no legal conclusion arose from the facts. Unlike in a case considered by the Madras High Court, where a legal conclusion was subject to review, the stapler's nature in this case did not call for a legal determination. Issue 4: The Tribunal rejected the Reference Application as no question of law remained for reference to the High Court. The decision was based on the factual nature of the issue, and the Tribunal's ruling on the stapler's classification as a non-industrial machine stood. The application was dismissed accordingly.
|
