1991 (10) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order of Collector of Customs & Central Excise
- Import of spares without required license under relevant policy
- Interpretation of Appendix 6, para (8) (a) and (b)
- Exclusion of spares under Appendix 6, Sl. No. 4
- Applicability of Calcutta Bench ruling on import of printed circuit boards

Analysis:
The judgment deals with an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise regarding the import of spares without the necessary license under the relevant policy. The appellant imported spares for a Spectrophotometer without the required license, resulting in proceedings being initiated against them. The appellant argued that the spares were permissible for import under Open General License (OGL) as they were within the prescribed limits and conditions of Appendix 6, para (8) (a) and (b), and also cited a ruling from the Calcutta Bench in support of their position.

Upon considering the submissions, the judge analyzed whether the imported spares were indeed permissible for import under OGL as per the relevant Licensing Policy. Despite meeting the conditions of Appendix 6, para (8) (a) and (b), the judge ruled that the spares were not permissible for import under OGL due to a specific exclusion under Appendix 6, Sl. No. 4. The judge emphasized that even though Actual Users are generally allowed to import spares for capital goods, if those spares are listed in Appendix 2, their import under OGL is expressly excluded.

The judge rejected the appellant's argument that Appendix 6, List 8, would allow the import of printed circuit boards, stating that List 8 pertains to raw materials, components, consumables, and tools, not spares. The judge concluded that a harmonious construction of the relevant entries indicated that the imported spares were not permissible for import under OGL. The judge upheld the findings of the lower authorities, holding that the import was in contravention of the law. Additionally, the judge noted that the quantum of fine had already been significantly reduced by the lower appellate authority and deemed no further reduction necessary, ultimately dismissing the appeal.