2016 (12) TMI 898 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - two tunnel boring machines - since they were of huge dimensions, the same were dismantled in convenient assemblies to suit the manner of packing of handling and packing for transporting to India, hence they were imported in knocked down condition in two consignments - revenue is of claim that what was imported was parts and components of second hand machine, which require special licence - whether the goods which were imported were machinery in knocked down condition or the parts and components of machinery? Held that - revenue has not adduced any additional evidence in respect of the consignment imported in order to come to a different conclusion - the first appellate authority has made out a finding that As per the respondents what has been imported is two set of second hand tunnel boring machine/equipment in knocked down conditions, most of which are allowed under O.G.L, and for eight second hand diesel locomotives they have produce & specific import licence no.0350000151/3/00/01, dated 17.10.2002, which was assessed on merit under Bill of Entry No. 724487/08.03.02. The same is not a point of dispute. It is not the case in appeal that Tunneling & boring machines are not capital goods. For the goods which are not capital goods i.e, diesel locomotives, the respondents have already submitted licence at the time of clearance. Hence the said contention of the Deptt. is not correct Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority, and the appeal stands rejected. Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under customs tariff headings, requirement of specific import license for second hand machinery parts, appeal against order-in-appeal.

The judgment deals with an appeal filed by the revenue against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the classification of goods imported by the respondent. The respondent imported two tunnel boring machines in knocked down condition, which were accepted as such by the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority. The revenue contended that the imported goods were parts and components of second-hand machinery, requiring a special license, and should have been confiscated. The first appellate authority upheld the classification of the goods as tunnel boring machines in semi-knocked down condition. The revenue appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the goods should have been seized separately and classified differently due to not being imported under Project Import Regulations. The Tribunal found that the revenue did not present any new evidence to warrant a different conclusion from the authorities' classification of the goods. The first appellate authority's decision was upheld as it correctly assessed the goods under separate tariff headings based on the merits of the case.

The first appellate authority considered the submissions made and concluded that the goods imported were second-hand tunneling equipment in semi-knocked down condition, correctly classified under separate tariff headings. The authority noted that the goods were not imported under project import and were dismantled for packing and handling purposes. The respondent had imported the goods under Open General License (O.G.L) and had specific import licenses for certain items, which were not in dispute. The authority rejected the revenue's contentions and found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's order, ultimately rejecting the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal concurred with the findings and upheld the impugned order, stating that no new evidence was presented to challenge the lower authorities' factual conclusions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal and upheld the order-in-appeal, as there was no merit in challenging the classification of the imported goods as tunnel boring machines in semi-knocked down condition. The respondent's cross objection was also disposed of in line with the upheld decision.