2001 (6) TMI 489 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported items as accessories or component parts under the EXIM policy.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai involved two appeals from the same importer concerning the classification of imported items as accessories or component parts under the EXIM policy. The Orders-in-Appeal were passed by different Commissioners at different times but reached the same conclusion that the accessories imported were component parts as per the EXIM policy. The Commissioners relied on Ministry's clarification and previous judgments by the Tribunal in similar cases.

The Appellant's representative argued that the items were accessories, not essential parts, based on the strict interpretation of the notification and the Accessories Rules, 1963. The argument emphasized the distinction between accessories and parts under the Customs Act, referring to Chapter Heading 84.66. The Appellant's items were declared as accessories under this heading, and it was contended that there was no evidence to show they were essential parts, contrary to the Commissioner's decision.

The Respondent's consultant supported the Commissioner's decision, stating that the definition of 'component parts' was not provided in the notification, leading to reliance on the EXIM policy, which included accessories within the definition. Invoices and Bill of Entries were cited to show that authorities considered the items as parts of the main machine, despite being declared as accessories. The consultant referenced previous Tribunal judgments to support their argument.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that while the notification referred to 'component parts,' the Tariff covered both 'parts' and 'accessories' under Heading 84.66. The Tribunal acknowledged the arguments from both sides but found a lack of evidence to determine whether the items were essential parts or merely accessories. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matters to the original authority for a fresh review. The Appellant was directed to provide evidence to support their claim, and the original authority was instructed to issue a detailed decision based on the evidence and the goods' description in the notification.

In conclusion, both Revenue appeals were allowed for remand to the original authority for a comprehensive reconsideration based on the evidence presented by the importer regarding the essential nature of the imported items for the functioning of the machine in question.