2015 (3) TMI 374 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of E-rickshaws - non-production of type approval certificate from the Auto Mobile Research Association of India or any other agency in terms of Rule 126 or Central Motor Vehicle Rules - Held that - as the E-rickshaw are imported by the appellant in CKD condition and without battery and have to be assembled it in India; they cannot be treated as new vehicle. If that be so, the provisions of Rule 126 of Motor Vehicle Rules which are applicable only to import of new vehicles would not apply. Commissioner (Appeals) has already remanded the matter to original adjudicating authority, we convert the said remand as open remand and direct the original adjudicating authority to examine the above issue, in the light of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 87 of Import Export Policy read with provisions of Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicle Act without any bindings with the directions of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues involved: Early hearing of appeals due to E-rickshaws confiscation for lack of 'type approval' certificate; Commissioner (Appeals) upholding objection and remanding the matter; Dispute over whether imported E-rickshaws in CKD condition can be considered new vehicles under Import Export Policy.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of early hearing of appeals concerning the confiscation of E-rickshaws due to the absence of a 'type approval' certificate. The E-rickshaws were imported by the appellants and confiscated by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the objection but remanded the matter, allowing the appellant to produce the required certificate.

2. Additionally, the Revenue increased the value of the imported goods, which the appellant accepted without dispute. However, a key contention arose regarding the classification of the imported E-rickshaws as new vehicles under the Import Export Policy. The appellant argued that since the E-rickshaws were imported in a CKD condition without a battery and needed assembly in India, they should not be considered new vehicles.

3. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 87 of the Import Export Policy, which excludes vehicles manufactured or assembled in India from the definition of new imported vehicles. The appellant's argument hinges on this distinction to assert that the provisions of Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, applicable to new vehicle imports, should not apply to the E-rickshaws imported in CKD condition.

4. In light of the above contentions, the judgment converts the remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) into an open remand. It directs the original adjudicating authority to reexamine the issue considering Chapter Note 2 of Chapter 87 of the Import Export Policy alongside the provisions of Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicle Act, without being bound by the previous directions of the Commissioner (Appeals).

5. Ultimately, the miscellaneous application and appeals are disposed of in the manner outlined above, emphasizing the need for a thorough reevaluation of the classification of the imported E-rickshaws as new vehicles under the relevant legal framework.