2000 (4) TMI 83 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 232/83-Cus. regarding concessional rate of duty for Key Board for Calculator.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 237/83-Cus. regarding concessional rate of duty for Printers for Calculators.
3. Impact of delay in adjudication proceedings on the validity of the decision.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved the question of whether the Key Board for Calculator qualifies for the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 232/83-Cus. The appellant claimed that Key Boards are switches, supported by a certificate from the Directorate of Industries. However, the tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove that Key Boards fall under the definition of switches as per the notification. The tribunal referred to the definition of Switch and Key Board from technical dictionaries to establish the distinction. As the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence, the benefit of the notification was denied.

2. The issue regarding Printers for Calculators under Notification No. 237/83-Cus. was also examined. The appellant contended that Line Printers, as defined in the notification, cover the Printers imported by them. However, the tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim. The tribunal emphasized the lack of material presented by the appellant to establish that the imported Printers were indeed Line Printers as per the notification. Without substantiating their argument, the benefit of the notification was not extended to the appellant.

3. The impact of delay in adjudication proceedings on the validity of the decision was also addressed. The appellant argued that the delay rendered the adjudication proceedings infructuous, citing precedents where delays led to set asides of orders. However, the tribunal rejected this argument, stating that there is no statutory time limit for completion of adjudication under the Customs Act. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, the tribunal emphasized that authorities must adhere to the law without prescribed time limits. The tribunal differentiated the present case from previous judgments where delays resulted in setting aside orders, highlighting the importance of proving a violation of natural justice due to delays. Since the appellant did not demonstrate how the delay affected their ability to present their case, the appeal was rejected.