1987 (6) TMI 318 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of imported goods for concessional assessment under Notification No. 284/76-Cus.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a question regarding the eligibility of goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 1761 dated 30-3-1980 for concessional assessment under Notification No. 284/76-Cus. The Assistant Collector of Customs and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected the claim for concessional assessment, stating that the imported goods were spare parts and not components, thus not qualifying for the notification.

During the hearing, the appellant's representative argued that the imported goods, although spare parts, could be considered components as they were parts of the equipment in which they were used and not consumable goods. Reference was made to a definition of "component part" in the Law of Lexicon and to previous Tribunal orders where similar goods were treated as component parts.

The Respondent's representative contended that there is a distinction between spare parts and component parts, emphasizing that component parts are those used in the initial assembly or manufacture of a machine, while spare parts are replacements for assembled parts. Reference was made to the Law of Lexicon to support this argument.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions and previous Tribunal orders, the Tribunal noted that the essentiality certificates produced by the appellants in previous cases did not specifically address whether the imported goods were components or spare parts. The Tribunal emphasized the wording of Notification No. 284/76, which exempts component parts of wireless apparatus from customs duty, indicating that parts used for initial assembly and those imported for replacement should be distinguished.

The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were for replacement and not for initial assembly, thus categorizing them as spare parts and not component parts. Despite the appellant's detailed arguments, the Tribunal held that the goods did not qualify for concessional assessment under the notification and dismissed the appeal.