1999 (4) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Import of spare parts under REP licences; Interpretation of Para 192 of ITC Policy 90-93 A.M.; Validity of REP licences for import of spares; Comparison of definitions of components and spares; Applicability of a previous judgment on components and spares to the current case.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of spare parts for paper making machines under REP licences. The jurisdictional officers contended that the licences issued under Para 192 of the ITC Policy 90-93 A.M. did not cover the import of spares. The importer lacked another licence, and formal show cause notice was waived. The Additional Collector subsequently issued an order confiscating the goods and imposing a fine for redemption. The appeal challenged this decision.

The main contention was whether the REP licences were valid for importing the contested spare parts. The appellant argued that the spare parts fell under Entry No. 730 of Appendix 3, covered by Para 192 of the policy. However, the word "spares" was absent in Para 192, raising questions about the eligibility of REP licences for spare parts import. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal judgment regarding the interpretation of "component part" and "spare parts" in a customs notification.

The Tribunal examined the previous judgment, which interpreted "component part" to include "spare parts" based on the absence of restrictive clauses. However, the Tribunal noted that the definitions of "component" and "spare" were explicitly provided in the ITC Policy. The definitions clarified that "spares" were distinct from "components." Therefore, the absence of "spares" in Para 192 indicated a deliberate policy choice to exclude spare parts from the flexibility of REP licences.

The Tribunal emphasized that the interpretation of terms in one statute could not automatically apply to another statute. As a result, the previous judgment's rationale on components and spares did not directly apply to the current case. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision that the REP licences were insufficient to cover the imported spare parts. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the confiscation of goods and the fine imposed.