1998 (10) TMI 240 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Limitation period for review under Customs Act.
2. Classification of goods - capital goods vs. consumer goods.
3. Validity of clearance against additional licences for goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Limitation period for review under Customs Act
The appellants argued that certain Bills of Entry were time-barred as the review power had to be exercised within one year from the date of decision under Section 130(4) of the Customs Act. However, the Collector (Appeals) held that the two-year time limit under Section 129D(2) applied for review. The Tribunal referred to a previous case and held that the longer period of limitation cannot revive cases where the remedy is already dead. Therefore, the Collector (Appeals) finding on limitation was set aside.

Issue 2: Classification of goods - capital goods vs. consumer goods
The dispute centered around whether Max staplers imported by the appellants were capital goods or consumer goods. The Collector (Appeals) classified them as office machines under Heading 84.51/51(1) and not packing machines under Heading 84.19 CTA. The appellants relied on a Board's Appellate order and a Madras High Court judgment, arguing that the staplers should be treated as capital goods. The Tribunal noted the Board's finding that the goods could be considered capital goods and that the Madras High Court judgment supported the use of staplers for packing purposes in the garment industry. Therefore, the release of goods against additional licences was deemed valid.

Issue 3: Validity of clearance against additional licences for goods
The Collector (Appeals) had held that the staplers were consumer goods not covered by the additional licences produced, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the release of goods against additional licences was in line with the Board's decision and supported by the Madras High Court judgment. Therefore, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) was deemed unsustainable on merits, and the appeals were allowed.

Overall, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Collector (Appeals) decision on both the limitation period for review and the classification of goods, thereby allowing the appeals.