1990 (9) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Import Policy 1985-88, eligibility for import under OGL, proper show cause notice, examination by technical appraiser, reference to DGTD, relevance of previous importations, technical aspects of magnification, commercial understanding of terms, contradictory evidence presented by appellants, department's failure to provide material evidence.

Classification under Import Policy 1985-88:
The appeal contested the sudden reclassification of imported microfilm lenses under Appendix 3A, entry No. 549 of the Import Policy 1985-88, despite prior clearances under OGL. The appellant argued that the lenses were eligible for import under OGL Appendix 6 or Appendix 46(3)(iii) as components, emphasizing the continuous variable magnification exceeding X-45.

Proper Show Cause Notice and Examination:
The show cause notice lacked specificity, failing to justify the reclassification. The adjudicating officer did not address all points raised by the appellants, and the report from the technical appraiser was not shared with the appellants, raising procedural concerns.

Reference to DGTD and Previous Importations:
The offer to refer the matter to DGTD post-show cause notice was deemed illogical, indicating uncertainty within the department. The relevance of previous importations under different policy periods was disputed, with the appellant arguing for their significance as precedents if policy changes were minor.

Technical Aspects and Commercial Understanding:
The appellant presented detailed technical arguments regarding magnification, distinguishing between microfilm lenses and objectives, supported by commercial evidence. The department failed to counter these arguments effectively, leading to a lack of substantiated evidence supporting the reclassification.

Decision:
The judgment favored the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and accepting the appeal due to the lack of a proper show cause notice, procedural irregularities, and the failure to provide substantial evidence supporting the reclassification. The court highlighted the common parlance understanding of terms and the absence of conclusive evidence contradicting the appellant's assertions, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.