1985 (11) TMI 159 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods imported are consumer goods.
2. Whether the goods cease to be consumer goods because the Policy permits import for stock and sale.
3. Whether the REP licence against which clearance was sought is valid for the import of the goods in question.
4. Whether the goods in question could have been imported as OGL items.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Whether the goods imported are consumer goods

The tribunal examined the definition of "consumer goods" as provided in the Import Policies for the years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-88. The definition states: "Consumer goods for the purpose of Import Policy, will mean consumption goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing, it would include consumer durables also." The tribunal found that the imported items, namely Hard Shell Almonds unselected, Dry Figs Quality No. 3, and Raisins Quality No. 3, are consumer goods as they can directly satisfy human needs without further processing. Thus, the tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that the imported goods are not consumer goods.

Issue 2: Whether the goods cease to be consumer goods because the Policy permits import for stock and sale

The tribunal noted that the Policies allowed the import of dry fruits (excluding Cashew Nuts and Dates) against licences issued to dealers engaged in that trade, but not under Open General Licence (OGL). The tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the goods cease to be consumer goods for the purpose of import because the Policies permitted stock and sale by dealers. The tribunal emphasized that dry fruits are restricted items and not banned items; hence, they could be imported only against a specific licence.

Issue 3: Whether the REP licence against which clearance was sought is valid for the import of the goods in question

The tribunal examined the REP licence and the relevant provisions of the Import Policies. The licence permitted the import of items permissible under para 138(14) of the Import Export Policy Volume I 1983-84. However, the tribunal found that the imported goods did not appear individually in Appendices 3, 5, 8, and 9 or were not specifically listed for import under OGL. The tribunal concluded that the licence did not confer a greater right or facility than the one conferred on the manufacturer-exporters under the relevant paragraphs. Thus, the tribunal held that the REP licence was not valid for the import of the goods in question.

Issue 4: Whether the goods in question could have been imported as OGL items

The tribunal examined the relevant provisions of the Import Policies and found that neither the Policy AM-1983-84, AM-1984-85, nor AM-1985-88 permitted the import of dry fruits under OGL, except for dates. The tribunal concluded that the goods in question could not have been imported as OGL items during the relevant period.

Conclusion:

The tribunal held that the imported goods are consumer goods and the REP licence was not valid for the import of these goods. The goods in question could not have been imported as OGL items. Consequently, the appeal was rejected.

← Previous Next →