9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (6) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... compressors and rock drilling equipment imported one case said to contain 18 Torque Wrenches valued at Rs. 66,068/- cif and sought clearance against their Import Licence No. P/D/1940334, dated 24-11-1981 which was valid for import of permissible items set out in Appendix 5 of the Policy AM 82 (for short 'the Policy') the Customs, however, objected to the clearance on the ground that the imported goods were pneumatic tools falling in the category of 'capital goods' and therefore, requires a specific licence and the licence produced was not valid. 3. After the issue of show cause notice and after the receipt of reply to the show cause notice, the Deputy Collector of Customs, who held the inquiry did not accept the appellants' contention that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentical and the Policy in respect of the goods were also identical during the Policy Period 1979 as well as during the Policy period 1982, the Deputy Collector grossly erred in ordering confiscation of the goods imported. He submitted that having regard to the previous clearance of the identical goods, the Deputy Collector ought to have released the goods. In support of his contention that the Department could not be allowed to take different views at different time, Shri Shenoy relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court reported in 1980 E.L.T. page 3 and also on the decision of the CEGAT reported in 1983 E.L.T. 816. It was the submissions of Shri Shenoy that the Deputy Collector having rightly observed that the previous clearances woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Policy Period 1982 and particularly during the Policy periods of 1978-79, 1980-81 portable pneumatic tools which included impactools were allowed to be imported under OGL. But in the Policy period 1982, pneumatic took were not allowed to be imported under OGL or under Appendix 5 and as such the appellants ought to have obtained specific import licence before importing the tools in question. Shri Prabhu urged that there is difference between "hand tools" and "pneumatic tools'. The hand tools are assessable under Chapter 82 of the Customs Tariff Act whereas the pneumatic tools are assessable under Chapter-84 of the said Act. Shri Prabhu contended that this aspect was considered by the Deputy Collector in his order. It was also the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat connection they placed reliance on the catalogue of Ingersoll-Rand. The catalogue produced by the appellants is not complete. The appellants however relied on the 2 certificates - one issued by Dr. P. Vasudevan, Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. His certificate was to the effect that M/s. Ingersoll-Rand manufactures of host of hand tools to serve various industries and their models 5020 HA1; 5020 TAH1 and 5040 TAH1 are pneumatically operated torque wrenches that are used for tightening nuts and bolts where precision torque is required. The other certificate relied on is of Research and Testing Department of CMTI. The said certificate is to the effect - "The Impactools models 5020HA1, 5020TAH1 and 5040TAH1 man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Tariff deals with Boilers machinery, mechanical appliances as well as parts thereof. Under this general heading 'tools' are also included. Heading 84.45/48 relates to 'machine-tools'. Heading 84.49 relates to tools for working in the hand, pneumatic or with self-contained non-electric motor. Chapter 82 of the Tariff relates to tools, implements, cutlery, spoons and forks, of base metal; parts thereof. Heading 82.01 to 04 pertain to 'hand tools'. From the Chapter headings it is clear that tools for working in the hand, pneumatic or with self-contained non-electric motor would appropriately fall under the heading "machinery" and not under the heading "tools". The Deputy Collector who originally adjudged confiscation is justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ket price of the goods, the fine of Rs. 50,000/- is not excessive". The Deputy Collector did not state as to the market price of the imported goods. It is not clear where-from the Collector (Appeals) got the market price. What had been missed by the Collector (Appeals) is the contention of the appellants that prior to the import in question identical import made by them were cleared without taking any objection. This contention of the appellants was accepted by the Deputy Collector. During the hearing, the appellants have contended that the import of identical items during the Policy AM 79 had been cleared without any objection against the identical licence. It was urged that the Policy during AM-79 and AM-82 in so far as they relate to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
