9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether paper shredders imported by the appellant in September 1995 were entitled to be imported without an import license. Analysis: The main issue in this appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai was whether paper shredders imported by the appellant in September 1995 were required to have an import license. The Commissioner had classified the paper shredders as consumer goods, necessitating a license for importation and subsequently ordering their confiscation due to the absence of such a license. The appellant did not appear or have any representation during the proceedings, despite notice. The Tribunal considered the memorandum of appeal and heard the arguments presented by the departmental representative. The Commissioner's reasoning for categorizing the paper shredders as consumer goods was based on the absence of specific inclusion of these items in the list of goods freely importable, unlike photocopiers and fax machines. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this classification, stating that the list of consumer goods specified in the Policy for free importation did not align with the definition of consumer goods provided in the Policy. The Tribunal highlighted that the definition of consumer goods in the Policy encompassed goods directly satisfying human needs without further processing. Items such as truck tires, dipping oil for grapes, and blueprints listed as consumer goods for free importation did not meet this criterion. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of paper shredders in the list of freely importable goods did not automatically classify them as consumer goods requiring a license. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that paper shredders had a limited scope of use compared to photocopiers and fax machines, which are more widely used in various settings. Considering the ambiguity surrounding the classification of consumer goods and the past practice of allowing the clearance of these goods, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importer. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and penalty, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.
|
