Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Autoline vs Commissioner Of Customs on 4 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(66)ECC787, 2000ECR331(TRI.-CHENNAI), 2001(130)ELT953(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 4/91-C, dated 11-6-1991 issued by the Collector of Customs, wherein in respect of the wheel alignment system imported by the appellants, the learned Collector had confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, but allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/- on the ground that the equipment could be used for aligning both front as well as rear wheels, whereas the ITC policy during the relevant period provided import under OGL only for front wheel alignment tester. The learned Collector also denied the benefit of Notification No. 243/78-Cus. (Sl. No. 5) on the ground that the equipment imported was not noise and vibration measuring system to which alone the said notification applies.
2. Vide their letter dated 6th May, 1999, the appellants have submitted that the appeal may be decided on merits and none appears for them today.
3. Heard Sri S. Sankaravadivelu, learned DR. He submits that the applicability of the aforesaid mentioned notification is clearly adjudicated upon because by no stretch of imagination, a wheel alignment system could be said to be noise and vibration measuring system, as the latter would be more concerned with noises and vibration produced by the engines and not by the wheels. The wheel alignment system is on a specific description and this description could not be stressed to be covered by a system which was measuring vibration and noise.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions and records of the case including the grounds of appeal. We find that as far as the ITC Policy is concerned, the OGL was extended to front wheel alignment testing system. It is not disputed that the equipment imported is capable of testing the alignment of front wheels, but it can also test the alignments of rear wheels. We feel that in view of the fact that the equipment was capable of testing front wheel alignments, it could not be denied import under OGL merely because, it was also capable of testing rear wheels. Therefore, we find that the Order-in-Original impugned needs to be modified to the extent of ordering confiscation and redemption fine on this count. However, we agree with the learned DR as far as the non-applicability of the aforesaid notification is concerned. We find that the wheel alignment system is known in trade parlance as such. As against this, noise and vibration test equipment would pertain to measuring the parameters of the functioning of the internal combustion engine. Even though, the defective wheel alignment may produce extra wobbling of steering, and noise when the vehicle is negotiating turns at higher speed, that cannot be taken to cover this wheel alignment system under the description of noise and vibration measuring system. Therefore, we are clearly of the considered opinion that the two products are totally different and hence the benefit of exemption has rightly been denied by the Order-in-Original.
5. In view of the aforesaid findings, we modify the Order-in-Original impugned only to the extent that the confiscation and redemption fine is set aside. However, we confirm the denial of duty exemption therein.
6. The appeal is allowed partially with the above directions.