9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors in question are indeed capital goods as far as the appellants are concerned, the Appellate Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case, was correct in holding that the import of the Video projectors was not covered by the import licences tendered by the appellants? (2) Whether in the light of its finding that the Video projectors in question are capital goods and in the light of the undisputed position that the items in question are not covered by Appendix 8 of the Import Export Policy 1988-91 and are not office machines, the Appellate Tribunal was right in its conclusion that the import of the Video projectors were not covered by the flexibility clause of Para 177(2) of the Import Export Policy 1988-91? (3) Whether the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... areas with the aid of mobile Video vans fitted with all necessary equipment like Video Projector, Video Cassette recorder etc. To meet the requirements of 24 number of Video projectors at a total value of Rs. 10 lakhs, the applicants obtained REP licence which carried identical endorsements to the effect that the licence was valid within its overall value for import of admissible items upto different CIF values as per Para 175 read with Para 177 of the Import Export Policy 1988-91. 3. The Customs Department raised an objection to the clearance of Video Projectors in question covered under this application. In the meanwhile, vide letter dated 8-11-1989, the Assistant Collector of Customs wrote to the office of the CCI E seeking clarifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under OGL and restricted, they cannot be imported under the flexibility clause and accordingly, he upheld the order of the Collector and rejected the appeal. On the other hand, the learned Member (Judicial) held that the imported goods were non-OGL capital goods entitled to clearance in terms of Para 177(2) of the relevant Policy, and proposed setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The Difference of Opinion was heard by the Hon ble President who agreed with the findings of the Member (Technical) and so the appeal was dismissed by a majority view. Hence this application. 6. Shri V. Sridharan, learned Counsel submits that in the face of the admitted position that the Video projectors in question are definitely capital goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eking is a review of the order of the Tribunal which has considered every aspect in detail and this is not permissible in law. Lastly, no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal as it is based entirely on appreciation of evidence and findings of fact based upon appreciation of evidence, cannot form the subject matter of a Reference application. 8. We have heard both the sides and carefully considered their submissions. We agree with the learned Counsel that interpretation of the Import Policy is involved in the matter. One of the key issues to be determined is whether the Para 177(2) of the relevant Import Policy is to be read independent of Para 108 or both are to be read together and a harmonious construction given there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
