9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which are not listed in the Appendix XXXV of the Handbook of Procedure 1st April, 1992 to 31st March, 1997 (Vol-1) and therefore not covered by the said licence? (ii) Whether there is any scope for applying the common parlance test to arrive at the right identity of the goods when the item indisputably falling under Tariff Heading No. 9503.90 is consumer goods and hence not covered by the licence produced by the importers? (iii) Whether there was any scope on the part of the importers to form bona fide belief that the goods in question were importable against the special import licence when the list of goods in Appendix - XXXV of the Handbook of Procedure 92-97 did not include at all? (iv) Whether a judicial pronouncement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted against the special import licence produced by the respondent but those items required a licence for import of such consumer goods. (d) The goods were confiscated on the ground that the respondent had not been able to produce a licence covering the goods in question and the special import licence produced by them did not cover the goods, the goods being consumer items. (e) Being dissatisfied, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal allowed the appeal thereby setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty with a specific finding that no violation of law was committed by the respondent. (f) While arriving at such conclusion, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eading of the amended and unamended Appendix, it is apparent that prior to 1996 only, those electronic games/toys, which was classifiable under 9503.20, could be imported against the Special Import Licence. (h) The Tribunal, thus, came to the conclusion that Special Import Licence was obtained by the appellant for import of the items in question and the department had not been able to put on record any evidence to show that there was any male fide on the part of the importers. Even if it was presumed that the goods were not importable under the Special Import Licence produced by the respondents, the Tribunal continued, going to the common parlance test, the electronic toys and games would stand covered by the licence in question as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... words used in the taxing stature are to be understood in common parlance or commercial parlance but such an understanding or commercial nomenclature can be given only in cases where the word in the Tariff Entry has not been sued in a scientific or technical sense and where there is no conflict between the word used in the Tariff Entry and in any other Entry of the Tariff schedule which is the case before us. 6. Applying the aforesaid principle of the fact of the present case we find that Import Trade Control Licence produced by the respondent was rightly held to be legal for import of the goods in question prior to the amendment of 1996. 7. Similarly, we find that as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Akbar Badruddin Jiwan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
