1994 (7) TMI 210 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of import license conditions for gear shape cutters and hob cutters.
- Confiscation of goods by customs authorities.
- Appeal against the order of confiscation and fine.
- Determination of whether gear shape cutters and hob cutters are necessary only for gear manufacturers.
- Evaluation of evidence provided by the license holder regarding the use of the imported goods.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal regarding the import of gear shape cutters and hob cutters by the license holders on behalf of a company. The customs department objected to the clearance of the goods, claiming they were not necessary for the manufacturing activities of the license holder. The goods were confiscated but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine. The appeal was rejected by the Collector, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant's advocate argued that the gear shape cutters and hob cutters were not exclusively required by gear manufacturers. Reference was made to technical definitions indicating that these tools are used for cutting tooth-like projections on workpieces, not limited to gear manufacturing. An independent engineer's certificate and a letter from the license holders were presented to demonstrate the use of the imported items in producing dies and fixtures for wire netting industry purposes.

On the other hand, the JDR contended that the imported cutters were not suitable for the wire netting industry. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence presented, noted that the appellant had provided an engineer's certificate confirming the use of the cutters for making dies and fixtures in the wire netting industry. This evidence remained unrebutted, and no expert opinion or contrary evidence was submitted to dispute the suitability of the cutters for the intended purpose. The Tribunal referred to the McGraw Hill Dictionary to support the broader application of gear shape cutters and hob cutters beyond gear manufacturing. Consequently, the Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant, extending the benefit and allowing the appeal with consequential relief based on the evidence presented and the lack of contradictory evidence.