1997 (7) TMI 457 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the impugned order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals)
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962
3. Imposition of redemption fine
4. Validity of importing goods as free technical and trade samples
5. Interpretation of para 98 of Hand Book of Procedure 1992-97
6. Requirement of license for import
7. Sufficiency of grounds to set aside the impugned order

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Department against the impugned order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) regarding the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Respondent imported office furniture as free technical and trade samples, claiming exemption under para 98 of the Hand Book of Procedure 1992-97. The Department challenged the bona fides of the samples and the intention to manufacture and export furniture.

2. The Department argued that the Respondent failed to prove the intention to manufacture furniture and export, and the imported goods were consumer goods not justifiable for import by a manufacturer of metal sheets. However, the Respondent contended that the import of technical and trade samples was permissible under para 98 without the need to prove immediate exports. The quantity and nature of the goods imported indicated they were trade samples within the permissible limit.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the impugned order, the provisions of para 98 of the Hand Book of Procedure, and the arguments presented. It found that the Respondent's import of the goods as free technical and trade samples fell within the exemption provided in para 98. The Tribunal rejected the Department's contention that a license was required for such imports and upheld the Collector of Customs (Appeals) order.

4. The Tribunal concluded that there were no sufficient grounds to set aside the impugned order. It affirmed that the goods imported by the Respondent qualified as bona fide technical and trade samples under para 98 of the Hand Book of Procedure. The appeal by the Department was rejected based on the findings and analysis presented in the judgment.