1985 (7) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the registration certificate for covering imported goods.
2. Competence of Customs authorities to question the registration certificate.
3. Classification of imported goods as tractors and diesel engines or their components.
4. Applicability of specific items under Appendices 3 and 5 of the Import Policy.
5. Imposition of fines and penalties in lieu of confiscation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Registration Certificate for Covering Imported Goods:
The Customs authorities questioned the validity of the registration certificate issued to the appellant, arguing that it was provisional and had expired before the clearance of the consignment. The appellant contended that the registration certificate was valid at the time of opening the L/Cs and shipment. The Additional Collector found that the provisional certificate was valid for one year and not subsequently extended, thus invalidating the import under OGL. However, the appellant argued that the relevant date for Customs clearance is when the Bill of Entry is filed, which was within the validity period of the certificate. The Tribunal ultimately found that the registration certificate was not valid to cover the goods imported, as the Customs authorities were justified in questioning the terms and conditions of the registration.

2. Competence of Customs Authorities to Question the Registration Certificate:
The Customs authorities sought clarification from the Director of Industries, Haryana, who indicated that the assembly of tractors was based primarily on indigenous components and did not recommend import. The Tribunal held that the Customs authorities were competent to question the validity of the registration certificate to determine if the import was strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the registration. The Customs authorities' role in verifying the actual user status and the terms of registration was upheld.

3. Classification of Imported Goods as Tractors and Diesel Engines or Their Components:
The Customs authorities argued that the imported goods were tractors and diesel engines in unassembled condition, relying on Rule 2(a) of the Rules of Interpretation of the First Schedule in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant contended that the imported goods were only components and not complete tractors or engines. The Tribunal found that the goods had the essential character of tractors and diesel engines, thus classifying them as such and not merely as components. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on the DGTD clarification, emphasizing the statutory interpretation under the Customs Tariff Act.

4. Applicability of Specific Items under Appendices 3 and 5 of the Import Policy:
The Customs authorities identified specific items like power packs, front axle, steering assembly, and tyres and tubes as falling under restricted categories in Appendices 3 and 5. The appellant argued that these items were permissible under OGL as components of tractors. The Tribunal upheld the Customs authorities' classification, finding that items like steering assembly and tyres and tubes were covered by restricted categories and could not be imported under OGL.

5. Imposition of Fines and Penalties in Lieu of Confiscation:
The Additional Collector imposed fines of Rs. 10 lakhs each for the two consignments in lieu of confiscation. The appellant argued for a reduction in fines, citing the relaxation in policy and the non-trade nature of imports. The Tribunal, while maintaining the confiscation of specific items, reduced the fine from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh for each consignment. However, the majority view confirmed the Additional Collector's order, rejecting the appeal and upholding the fines and penalties imposed.

Final Judgment:
The Tribunal, by majority view, confirmed the Additional Collector's order, holding that the imports violated the Import Trade Control Regulations. The appeal by M/s. Espi Industrial Corporation was rejected, and the penal actions, including fines and confiscation, were upheld.