9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against order confirming confiscation of Digital Bearing Checker under Customs Act - Dispute over clearance under license for restricted spares or OGL Appx. 1B, Item No. 2(9) of AM. 85-88 - Arguments regarding definition of "spares" and "capital goods" under Policy 1984-85 - Claim for clearance under OGL entry 2(9) for bearing inspection equipment - Reduction of redemption fine due to appellants being actual users without profit motive Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal challenging the confiscation of a Digital Bearing Checker under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The appellants imported the item and claimed clearance under a license for restricted spares or under OGL Appx. 1B, Item No. 2(9) of AM. 85-88. The adjudicating authority rejected both claims, stating the license was not valid for the item and the item did not qualify as spares or capital goods under the policy. The Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellant's representative argued that the item should be cleared under the license for restricted spares or under OGL entry 2(9) for bearing inspection equipment. He contended that the item fell within the definition of spares and should be allowed for import. However, the Department's representative countered that the item did not meet the criteria for spares or capital goods as defined in the policy. The tribunal analyzed the submissions and policy provisions. It concluded that the item did not qualify as spares under the policy's definition and could not be imported under the license for restricted spares. Regarding the OGL claim, the tribunal found that the item did not meet the criteria for capital goods as specified in the policy. Despite arguments about the item's use for rendering services, it was deemed not to be capital goods and thus not eligible for clearance under OGL entry 2(9). However, considering that the appellants were the actual users of the item without a profit motive, the tribunal deemed the 100% redemption fine excessive. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 15,000, maintaining the authorities' order with this modification. The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the import clearance dispute and the criteria for spares and capital goods under the policy, ultimately upholding the confiscation order but reducing the redemption fine based on the appellants' user status.
|
