Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Lml Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs on 4 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(120)ELT410(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. These are four appeals. Since the issue involved is common, therefore, they are taken together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellant imported scooter components viz. mirror and grip, and name plates made of metal and plastic in the first 3 appeals and detachable luggage box in Appeal No. C/277/99-NB.
3. Whether the above goods fall under the restricted category of import or allowed import without any import licence is an issue to be considered in these appeals.
4. It was the contention of the party that the above items do not fall under restricted category and since the goods as parts of motor vehicle they are covered under OGL in respect of the items covered under the first 3 appeals. It was also the contention from the party that lower authority ought not to have been guided by their own individual view on the eligibility of the appellant and to import the goods in question but should have been guided by the Import-Export Policy effective from 1st April, 1997 since the bills of entry have been filed on 2nd and 3rd April, 1997. Further, it was contended that the lower authority had ignored the fact that the appellant is an actual user/manufacturer and they imported the goods only for scooters being manufactured by them. With reference to the items as detachable luggage boxes it is claimed by them as parts of scooter/motor vehicle falling under OGL as consumer durables.
5. Arguing for the appellant, Sh. R. Santhanam, ld. Advocate submitted that the above items are nothing but parts accessories of motor vehicle falling under tariff Heading 87.11 to 87.13 as specifically mentioned in pages 865 and 867 of the ITC Classification. He submitted that what is restricted even as per the ITC Classification is only the import of accessories of motor vehicle parts which are in the nature of raw materials as defined in the Export-Import Policy for the relevant period. Under the Export-Import Policy the definition of raw material in the case of a manufacturer specifically import any materials or goods which are required for its manufacturing process whether they have actually been previously manufactured or processed or still in a raw of natural state. He contended that the items imported are, therefore, nothing but raw materials for the appellant who is a manufacturer of motor vehicles and the fact that those items were already manufactured abroad would be immaterial. It was also submitted by him that the definition of consumer goods does include raw materials and vice versa. Accordingly, he submitted that the above imported goods are raw material and not being consumer goods, do not require any licence for import thereof. Further, he submitted that the very specific issue had come up for consideration before the Tribunal in the appellant's own case and the Tribunal as per Final Order No. A/962/97-NB (SM) dated 3-11-1997 in Customs appeal No. C/76/97-NB(S) decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Further, Division Bench of the Tribunal has held in Final Order No. 603/98-B2 dated 29-7-1998 1999 (105) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal) that the eligibility to import the goods must be guided by Export-Import Policy and not by the ITC Classification or the Customs Tariff classification. He pleaded that the above orders passed by the Tribunal were placed before the first appellate authority but same was not taken into consideration while rejecting the appeal.
6. Dr. Ravinder Babu, ld. JDR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the above items are restricted items and they are not permitted to be imported except against the licence. In this connection; he referred to the relevant pages of the respective ITC classification with reference to the parts in question imported by the appellant. Further, it was submitted by him that there is nothing on record to show whether the orders passed by the Tribunal referred to by the other side were placed before the first Appellate Authority. He also submitted that the decisions relied upon by the appellants are not applicable to the facts of this case.
7. I have carefully considered the matter. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the above items cannot be treated as consumable goods because it had been imported for use in the manufacture of scooter etc. According to them they were not required to take out any licence with reference to the above goods. The definition of consumer goods, raw material and capital goods as defined in the relevant Import Policy is relevant and they are as under :-
"Consumer goods" means any consumption goods which can be directly satisfy human need without further processing and include consumer durables and accessories thereof. "Raw material" means:
(i) basic materials which are needed for the manufacture of goods, but which are still in a raw or natural, unrefined or unmanufactured state; and
(ii) for a manufacturer, any materials or goods which are required for his manufacturing process, whether they have actually been previously manufactured or are processed or are still in a raw or natural state".
Capital goods, raw materials, intermediates, components, consumables, spares, parts, accessories, instrument and other goods may be imported without any restriction except to the extent such imports are regulated by the Negative List of Imports or any other provision of this Policy or any other law for the time being in force".
8. According to the definition of consumer goods it means any consumer of goods which can directly satisfy human needs without further processing and include consumer durables and accessories thereof.
9. In the instant case admittedly appellants are manufacturers of scooter and an actual users of the goods. I find that the issue with reference to the paid imported by the appellant has already been considered by the Tribunal in the party's case (Final Order No. A/962/97-NB(SM) referred to above). It was emphatically argued that the said decision was placed before the Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, it was submitted by the DR that nothing is on record to indicate to whether this order was before him. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the matter will have to go back for reconsideration. Accordingly, matter is remanded to the concerned Commissioner (Appeals) and to decide the issue afresh in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in the cases referred to above and to pass an order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity to the party.
10. Thus, this 4 appeals are disposed of in the above terms.