Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1993 (12) TMI 213

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ecifically included in the Negative list, its import is permissible without an import license in terms of Public Notice No. 32(PN)/92-97, dated 17-7-1992 subject to the prescribed conditions. The impugned orders are therefore wrong and not sustainable. I therefore set aside and allow these appeals with the order that the impugned goods in this case be released to the appellants in terms of Public Notice No. 32(PN)/92-97, dated 17-7-1992 subject to the conditions prescribed therein . : Appeal Nos. C/693-702/93-NRB involving imports by M/s. India Watch Parts manufacturers and Appeal No. C/937/93-NRB involving import by M/s. Rochees Watch Manufacturing (P) Ltd. As the above appeals have the same issue involved for determination in them, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e falling under Appendix 28 for Restricted Items on Negative list of the Import Export Policy, 1992-97. (c) That as per the ISI-9783-1981 relating to nomenclature for parts of wrist watches, watch cases have been shown under Clause 2.7.10 whereas Bezel Centre and Bezel Ring have been shown under Clauses 2.7.11 and 2.7.12. The appellants claimed that Bezel by itself is not a watch case and while watch cases may contain Bezel, Bezel by itself cannot be called as a watch case, nor Bezel fitted with glass can be called a watch case, as a watch case has a number of other parts also, as is evident from ISI-9783-1981. (d) The appellants also submitted a copy of letter from the Industrial Advisor confirming that Bezel fitted with crystal is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the glass of a watch or a clock. The appellants contested that thus Bezel is not a watch case which has been classified under the Negative list of the Import Policy Book; that its import is accordingly permissible without any licence. (g) The watch cases have the following parts (i) Tension Ring, (ii) Back Cover, (iii) Movement Holder Ring, (iv) Bend Ring, (v) Winding Knob, (vi) Bezel and (vii) Crystal (glass). 3. When the matter was called, Shri K.N. Gupta, the ld. SDR submitted that the Hon ble Bench has not allowed them to adduce additional evidence in support of their contentions and therefore he will confine to what has been stated in the appeal; that though Bezel has been defined in the Order-in-Appeal passed by the ld. Collector .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ten s Watch and Clock Maker s Handbook showing that Bezel fitted with glass is only a part component of a watch case and not a complete watch case. The ld. Consultant for the appellants submitted that Asstt./Dy. Collector in his findings has not given any reason as to why Bezel fitted with glass should be treated as watch case. Referring to the Policy for the relevant period, he submitted that the Negative List includes only watch case and not its components. He, therefore, submitted that, as Bezel fitted with glass is only a component or part of a complete watch case and not the complete watch case and therefore the item imported by the appellants namely Bezel fitted with glass were not watch cases, and hence not covered by the Negativ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... licence. The ld. Consultant submitted that the appellants were actual users, the impugned goods imported by them were parts and spares of consumer durables, these impugned goods were not in the Negative list and therefore were validly imported without a licence. In support of his contention, the ld. Consultant relied upon the decision in the following cases : (a) Gujarat State Export Corpn. v. Union of India reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 50 (Bombay), (b) M/s. Kothari Co. v. C.C., reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 155 (Tbl.), (c) Pashupati Chemicals Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Customs reported in 1993 (64) E.L.T. 361 (Cal.). 6. Heard the submissions made by both the sides and considered them. The short issue for determinatio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates