1999 (3) TMI 245 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether lead acid storage batteries imported by the appellant are considered consumer goods under the import policy.
2. Whether the appellant's contentions regarding the nature of the batteries and the validity of exim scrips for clearance are valid.
3. The applicability of previous export-import policies in determining the importability of goods.
4. Imposition of penalty on the importer under Section 112.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported lead acid storage batteries, which were deemed consumer goods by the Custom House under the import policy. The Collector upheld this decision, stating that the batteries were fully manufactured and ready to use after charging. The appellant argued that the batteries were not consumer goods in their imported form as they required filling with electrolyte and charging. The Tribunal examined the technical process of charging the batteries and questioned whether this process transformed the goods into consumer goods. It was noted that the charging process did not necessarily change the nature of the batteries, and recharging could be done in various locations, not just at the importer's premises.

2. The Tribunal considered the appellant's alternative contention regarding the validity of exim scrips for clearing the goods. The appellant relied on previous Tribunal decisions to support the argument that the batteries were not consumer goods. The Tribunal analyzed the transition from the previous export-import policy to the current one and concluded that goods importable under the previous policy could continue to be imported under the new policy. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal held that the appellant could import the batteries under the exim scrips if they were valid for such clearance.

3. In a separate issue, the Tribunal addressed the imposition of a penalty on the importer under Section 112. The appellant argued for a separate determination of penalty liability apart from the eligibility to import goods. The Tribunal agreed that the penalty issue was debatable, especially considering the nature of the goods and the validity of exim scrips. Since there was no evidence of misdeclaration or fraudulent intent, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed on the importer.

4. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to review the eligibility of the importer to clear the goods based on the exim scrips submitted within a specified timeframe. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, providing relief to the appellant in terms of the penalty imposed.