1994 (6) TMI 56 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported items (Techo Generator and Electric Fagon Box).
2. Requirement of import license.
3. Applicability of Notification 68/87 and Notification 156/86.
4. Adequacy of evidence provided by the importer.
5. Decision on remanding the case for de novo consideration.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Items:
The primary issue was the classification of the imported items, specifically the Techo Generator and Electric Fagon Box. The Assistant Collector classified the Techo Generator as a motor under Appendix 3A Item No. 450(1) and the Electric Fagon Box as a mounted PCB under Entry 124 Appendix 2(b) of the Import Policy. The importer contended that these items were spare parts of machine tools, falling under OGL Appendix 6, List 6 Part I, Sl. No. 546 (VII) - 37.

2. Requirement of Import License:
The authorities found that the imported items required a valid import license. The Techo Generator and Electric Fagon Box were deemed unauthorized imports due to the absence of such a license. The Customs Examination Report and the lack of a catalogue or sufficient evidence to substantiate the importer's claims led to the conclusion that the items fell under categories requiring a license.

3. Applicability of Notification 68/87 and Notification 156/86:
The importer claimed the benefit of Notification 156/86, which was not extended by the Assistant Collector on the grounds that it was available only to components used by manufacturers of machine tools. The lower appellate authority upheld this decision, rejecting the importer's claim for the benefits under the said notification.

4. Adequacy of Evidence Provided by the Importer:
The importer failed to provide adequate evidence to substantiate their claims. The Bill of Entry described the Techo Generator as "Techometer Rowan" and later as "Techo Generator Rowan," but no catalogue or sufficient documentation was furnished. The Customs Examination Report described the item as a Techomotor. Similarly, for the Electric Fagon Box, no catalogue was produced, and the wiring diagram and manual did not describe the item as claimed by the importer.

5. Decision on Remanding the Case for De Novo Consideration:
There was a difference of opinion between the judicial member and the Vice President. The judicial member upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding the importer's claims unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence. Conversely, the Vice President believed the items were misclassified and should be re-examined, treating them as parts of a motorized speed regulator system. The matter was referred to a third member, who agreed with the judicial member that the appeal should be rejected as unsubstantiated, concluding that the catalogue of the parts in dispute was never produced and the documents provided were incomplete.

Final Order:
The majority opinion led to the dismissal of the appeal, upholding the lower authorities' decision. The importer's failure to provide adequate evidence and the correct classification and licensing requirements were pivotal in the final judgment.