2008 (10) TMI 238 - AT - Customs

Confiscation on ground of mis-declaration - Import of complete photocopying machines under the guise of parts of photo copying machines - it revealed that the appellant had imported complete assembled photocopying machine and also imported equal number of mounted PCBs and plastic moulded covers along with screws Hard-Ware supplied separately - Since the appellants is having licence to import the components of photo copier machine and the fact that the goods which are imported are components of photo copier machine and not full photo copier machine in CKD condition we find that the impugned order holding the consignment as complete photo copying machine in completely knocked down condition is un sustainable.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant imported components or complete photocopying machines in CKD condition.
2. Validity of the import license for components of photocopying machines.
3. Authority and jurisdiction of revenue to allege the import as complete photocopying machines.
4. The adequacy of the inspection report and its impact on the appellant's ability to defend themselves.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Import of Components vs. Complete Photocopying Machines in CKD Condition:
The core issue was whether the appellant imported components of photocopying machines or complete photocopying machines in completely knocked down (CKD) condition. The appellant argued that they imported only components as per the attached list to their import license. The customs authorities, acting on intelligence, examined the consignment and concluded that the appellant had imported complete assembled photocopying machines along with mounted PCBs and plastic moulded covers. The adjudicating authority held that there was a misdeclaration of the value and that the goods were indeed complete photocopying machines in CKD condition.

However, upon re-examination of the consignment, it was found that the items imported did not match the quantities needed to assemble 20 photocopying machines. The examination report noted various components and parts, but the quantities did not support the assembly of complete units. This discrepancy led to the conclusion that the imported goods were indeed components, not complete machines.

2. Validity of the Import License:
The appellant provided a valid import license (No. P/A/1468268 dated 14-7-87) for components of plain paper copiers. The lower authorities initially concluded that the license did not cover electronic components and thus seized the consignment. However, the tribunal found that the appellant had a valid license to import the components of photocopying machines. The tribunal emphasized that the goods imported were components and not full photocopying machines in CKD condition, thus supporting the validity of the import license.

3. Authority and Jurisdiction of Revenue:
The appellant contended that the revenue had no jurisdiction to allege the import as complete photocopying machines since the licensing authority (Development Commissioner, SSI, Ministry of Industry and Company Affairs) had granted them a license to import components. The tribunal noted that the customs authorities acted on intelligence and conducted an examination, but the findings were not consistent with the allegation of importing complete machines. The tribunal's decision underscored that the revenue's jurisdiction was limited to verifying compliance with the import license, which was found to be valid for components.

4. Adequacy of the Inspection Report:
The appellant argued that the inspection report on the reverse of the bill of entry described the goods as being in SKD condition and not complete units. They also contended that they were not provided with the inspection report dated 10-11-1987, affecting their ability to defend themselves. The tribunal found that the recent examination report conducted in the presence of the appellant indicated that the imported goods were components and parts, not complete photocopying machines. The tribunal criticized the lack of detailed quantities in the examination report and concluded that the evidence did not support the allegation of importing complete machines.

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the appellant had imported components of photocopying machines, not complete units in CKD condition. The import license was valid for the components imported. The revenue's allegation of importing complete photocopying machines was not substantiated by the evidence. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →