1996 (5) TMI 168 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of import policy for steel rollers as spares.
2. Classification of goods under OGL Appendix 3 and 6.
3. Requirement of import license for goods under specific entries.
4. Eligibility of goods as spares under Para 241(5).
5. Distinction between spares and components under import policy.

Analysis:
The appellant imported steel rollers as replacement parts for machinery used in chipboard manufacturing, seeking clearance under OGL Appendix 6(4) of the Import Policy for 1984-85. The Addl. Collector of Customs classified the goods under entry 446 of Appendix 3 Pt. A, requiring an import license, leading to confiscation with a redemption option. The appellant argued that the goods were spares not covered by Appendix 3, citing the exclusion of spares of iron and steel, and the absence of the goods in entry 446. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case (Amar Roller Flour Mills v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 613).

The Departmental representative contended that distinguishing between spares and components would create inconsistencies, as identical goods could fall under different provisions. It was argued that the goods were ineligible under OGL due to their mention in Appendix 3, and even if considered as spares, import would be restricted, necessitating an import license. The policy's distinction between spares and components was highlighted, defining spares as parts for substitution and components as parts of a manufactured product.

The Tribunal noted that the goods were imported as spares for replacement in machinery, not as components for manufacturing. Referring to Para 241(5), which allows import of items not individually listed as spares by an Actual User, it was determined that the goods could be imported under this provision. The generic entry 446 did not specifically cover the goods imported, supporting their classification as spares. The argument that the goods were restricted spares was rejected, as they were not individually listed in relevant appendices.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The decision was based on the goods being imported as spares by an Actual User under OGL, in accordance with Para 241(5) and the distinction between spares and components under the import policy.