1993 (3) TMI 221 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Violation of ITC restrictions in importing "Float Glass," classification of goods as consumer durables, imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty, alleged discrimination by the Lower Authority, interpretation of the definition of "durable goods."

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Lower Authority's decision that the imported "Float Glass" violated ITC restrictions and was liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellants claimed the goods under "OGL other than Negative List 1992-97" for manufacturing consumer durable goods like decorative mirrors and glasses. The Lower Authority confiscated the goods and imposed a fine and personal penalty, which led to the appeal.

During the personal hearing, it was highlighted that the Appellant was an actual user of Float Glass for manufacturing glass mirrors, supported by their SSI registration for processing decorative mirrors and glasses. The Lower Authority questioned whether the mirrors produced were consumer durables, leading to the imposition of penalties. The Appellant argued that the Lower Authority's decision was unjust and inconsistent, citing examples of other importers allowed to clear Float Glass without hindrance.

The Appellant's representative referred to the definition of "durable" and "durable goods" to support their claim that the goods were not hit by the Negative List and were permissible under the Import Policy AM 1992-97. The Commissioner found that the Lower Authority erred in considering Float Glass as hit by the Negative List and in classifying mirrors as non-consumer durables. The Commissioner also noted the discriminatory practices in the Lower Authority's approach to imports and ruled in favor of the Appellants, setting aside the impugned order and ordering relief for the Appellants.