Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Data Enterprises vs Commissioner Of Customs on 7 June, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(113)ELT876(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. In this appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 113/97, dated 30-5-1997 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants are aggrieved on the confiscation, fine and penalty imposed on the goods imported by them on two grounds :-
(a) that since the goods constitute upto to about 90% of a Photocopying machine therefore they cannot be called components of Photocopying machine, and
(b) that since these components are second hand goods, therefore they are not covered by the Special Import Licence produced by the appellants.
2. Heard Shri C.G. Verkey, learned Consultant for the appellants and Ms. Aruna Gupta, ld. DR.
3. Ld. Consultant submits that from the Examination Report by Customs Officers available on the reverse of the Bill of Entry, it is clear that the goods have been found to be reconditioned components for plain photo copiers as the chasis is without PCBs and hence they do not make a full machine. Ld. Consultant submits that PCB is the brain of the photocopying machine and without it the machine is totally incomplete. Therefore what is imported are a number of components of a photocopying machine and not the entire machine itself. Secondly, ld. Consultant submits that the examination report itself concedes that these are reconditioned goods . Therefore, it was not correct for the department to hold that these are second-hand goods because reconditioned goods are obviously not absolutely fresh goods. There could be two logical sources for reconditioned goods, Firstly, they could be fresh goods but found defective and therefore reconditioned and secondly, they could be used goods which are reconditioned. Ld. Consultant submits that when Import Policy allows import of reconditioned components of photo copiers against a special import licence, then if the Customs holds a view that these are second-hand goods, it amounts to the very negation of the Import Policy as the policy provisions concerned is then rendered otiose. This would be an illogical interpretation. He cites the case law of Bhagawan Electro Photocopiers v. C.C., New Delhi as in 1999 (106) E.L.T. 66 (T) wherein it has been held that as long as the goods were incomplete, second-hand reconditioned photocopiers, they would be qualified as components of photocopiers as per the Import Export Policy para 7(10). Ld. Consultant submits that in that case even the PCB has been imported whereas in their case the PCB has not been imported and hence the facts of this case are even on a stronger footing.
4. Learned Consultant submits that the Dictionary meaning of the word "components" as given in the Concise Oxford Dictionary is "contributing to the composition of a whole". The Shorter Oxford Dictionary (1955 Edition) defines it as a constituent part or element. The conglomeration of' components is also allowed to be imported under the said licence. In the absence of the PCB, the goods are merely a number of components mounted on a chasis.
5. Heard Ms. Aruna Gupta, ld. DR who submits that since 90% of the components are already imported in a form mounted on the chasis, therefore the photocopying machine has already acquired the characteristics of a photocopying machine and hence it cannot be called components. She also reiterates the order-in-original and order-in-appeal with respect to the goods being second-hand goods.
6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case. A perusal of the reverse of the Bill of Entry in the Paper Book shows that the Customs Officer's Examination Report has clearly held that the goods are reconditioned components of a photocopying machine because the PCB is not imported. I have also perused the decision in the case of Bhagwan Electro Photocopiers (Supra). I find that since the Populated Circuit Board has not been imported, the machine cannot perform any function as the PCB is the heart of the machine. Therefore what is imported is merely a set of components for a photocopying machine, and not the full machine by itself. I also find that the policy does not restrict the import to one or two components thereof. It merely says that reconditioned components of a photocopier is allowed to be imported against a Special Import Licence. It is not in dispute that the Special Import Licence produced by the importers was not such a licence. I also find that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has grossly erred in holding the goods to be second-hand goods and therefore not available for import against such a Special Import Licence. This view is totally inconsistent with the provisions in the Import Policy allowing the import of reconditioned components. Obviously, reconditioned components are already used components which are being reconditioned. To obstruct its import on the ground that they are second-hand, makes this entry in the entry also totally otiose. It is well settled law that no provision of law could be interpreted in such a way that it makes another parallel provision of law otiose or redundant. Therefore, this interpretation is not legally correct.
7. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the findings above, I find that the goods imported are merely reconditioned components of photocopiers and would therefore be available for import against the special import licence tendered. Therefore, the order-in-appeal impugned is set aside and appeal allowed with consequential relief, as per law.