1997 (12) TMI 357 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of goods classification under Open General Licence (OGL) and Notification No. 77/89-Cus.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi heard an appeal against an order-in-original passed by the Collector, Customs, Bombay. The Collector had determined that the goods imported by the appellants, described as Stereo Zoom Microscope, did not fall under the Open General Licence (OGL) Appendix 1, Part B, Item No. 12, Serial No. 198 of Import Export Policy, 1990-93, and were not eligible for the benefits of Notification No. 77/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989.

The General Manager representing the appellants argued that the goods were indeed Stereo Zoom Microscopes based on the order, bill of entry, and packing list. Despite potential additional features, the goods should still be classified as such. The Tribunal considered the description of the goods in various documents, including the Airway Bill and supplier clarification, which indicated the presence of a screen for magnified image projection and photography capabilities alongside microscope functions.

The Collector, Customs contended that the imported goods were composite equipment with multiple functions beyond a standard microscope, including projector and photography features. The Tribunal examined the orders placed by the appellants, the invoice, and the packing list, which confirmed the presence of additional equipment for photography purposes, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not solely stereo zoom microscopes.

Regarding the classification under the Open General Licence (OGL) and Notification No. 77/89-Cus., the Tribunal determined that since the goods did not meet the criteria for being classified as stereo zoom microscopes, they were not covered under the relevant provisions. The Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision and dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the impugned order.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision revolved around the interpretation of the goods imported by the appellants and their classification under the Open General Licence (OGL) and Notification No. 77/89-Cus. The Tribunal analyzed the descriptions provided by the parties, the functions of the equipment, and relevant policy provisions to determine that the goods did not qualify as stereo zoom microscopes, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.