9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 365X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was imposed on the importers, namely M/s. Sigma Electronics, Jaipur and an additional penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on Shri Vasudev Moolrajni, partner in the appellant firm. 2. Shri R.S. Krishna Kumar, ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the Commissioner has given findings in favour of the appellants on almost all the points in dispute. But has still ordered confiscation of the impugned goods and imposed penalties on the appellants. He submits that the Commissioner has given the finding that PCB were in the negative list at the material time in terms of paragraph 156 of the ITC Policy and the appellants have not furnished any specific import licence at the time of importation. In this connection, he refers to sub paragraph 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods had became liable to confiscation. He also draws attention to Public Notice No. 32(PN)/92-97, dated 17-7-1992 (Annexure B of the appeal papers). In the said Public Notice reference has been made to the Ministry of Commerce Notification 22(N-3), dated 30-6-1992 amending inter alia the definition of Consumer goods so as to include accessories, components, parts and spares of consumer durables. PCBs already appear in the negative list. Consequent upon the amendment of the definition of Capital goods [ consumer goods ] by Notification No. 22(N-3), dated 30-6-1992, accessories, components and spares of consumer durables, also fell within the scope of negative list as part of consumer goods . In terms of paragraph 156 of Import and Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted that in the case of appellants, the appellants had not imported PCBs as such but as sub-assembly of quartz clock movement, and therefore, para 4 of the Public Notice No. 32, dated 17-7-1992 is not attracted and therefore, there was no contravention of the Import Policy in their case. He also submitted that further condition in paragraph 4 of the Public Notification namely the condition of actual user had been satisfied by the appellants and therefore, there was no justification for ordering confiscation of the goods nor imposition of a penalty. 5. I have carefully considered the scope of Public Notice No. 32/92. Para 4 thereof states as under : 4. It is hereby notified that accessories, component parts and spares of consumer durab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actual users will not change the position since the sub-assemblies (which in my opinion would come within the meaning of accessories, components and spares of consumer durables) will require possession of a valid licence since one of those accessories, components, etc. viz. PCB is included in the negative list of imports under the Import Policy. PCBs in the instant case were imported as sub-assemblies, accessories, components etc. of consumer durables. There is no dispute that Consumer goods fall under the negative list of imports and to the extent they have been imported without obtaining the licence, making them liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the above view of the matter, I find no scope for int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
