1994 (2) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Technical delay in filing separate appeals.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Validity of import licenses for Fax machines under the Import Policy.
4. Interpretation of the term "non-OGL capital goods" in the context of the Import Policy.
5. Impact of deletion of certain conditions from import licenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Technical Delay in Filing Separate Appeals:
The appellants, M/s. Agro Impex, initially filed a single appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Madras. As directed by the Bench, they subsequently filed separate appeals for each Bill of Entry. The tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing these separate appeals.

2. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The appeals related to the import of Fax machines against additional licenses issued to Export Houses/Trading Houses. The adjudicating authorities confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fines and penalties:
- M/s. Agro Impex: Redemption fine of Rs. 25,00,000 and penalty of Rs. 12,00,000.
- M/s. M.B. Impex: Redemption fine of Rs. 3,84,368 and penalty of Rs. 75,000.

3. Validity of Import Licenses for Fax Machines Under the Import Policy:
The confiscation was based on the assertion that Fax machines, being office machines, are restricted for import under para 118(7) of the Import Policy. The relevant policy periods were 1988-91 and 1990-93. The tribunal noted that the licenses produced by M/s. Agro Impex and M.B. Impex had additional endorsements deleting conditions (i) to (iii) on the reverse of the licenses, which could impact the applicability of other conditions under para 215 of the Import Policy.

4. Interpretation of the Term "Non-OGL Capital Goods":
The appellants argued that Fax machines, though office machines, are capital goods and should be allowed under the flexibility provisions of para 215(4)(iii) of the Import Policy. The tribunal examined the policy and noted that para 215(4) allows the import of non-OGL capital goods, and the deletion of conditions (i) to (iii) from the licenses meant that the restrictions under para 118(7) would not apply to the appellants. The tribunal also referenced para 224(1) of the 1990-93 policy, which supports the appellants' position.

5. Impact of Deletion of Certain Conditions from Import Licenses:
The deletion of conditions (i) to (iii) from the licenses was crucial. These conditions typically subject the license to the relevant ITC policy provisions. The tribunal observed that the deletion of these conditions meant that the import of Fax machines should be governed solely by para 215 of the Import Policy, without the restrictions of para 118(7). The tribunal found no clear reason for the licensing authorities' decision to delete these conditions but concluded that the deletion allowed the import of Fax machines as non-OGL capital goods.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeals of M/s. Agro Impex and M/s. M.B. Impex, ruling that the deletion of conditions (i) to (iii) from the licenses meant that the restrictions under para 118(7) of the Import Policy did not apply. Consequently, the import of Fax machines was valid under the flexibility provisions of para 215(4)(iii), and the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties were not maintainable in law. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

← Previous Next →