Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Ksb Pumps Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs on 11 June, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(161)ELT187(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (Technical)
1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether 1950 Nos. of "Power Driven Centrifugal Pumps Primarily Designed for Handling Water" imported by the appellants can be treated as not conforming to the definition of "Consumer goods" and allowed to be imported freely. In the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner of Customs, Jawahar Customs House has dealt with the issue at length and has come to a conclusion that the imported goods are of small size, small weight, portable, run on single phase electric motor of small rating and are having small outlet diameter of 1 inch only. He has observed that the size and capacity of a mechanical/electrical gadet and the use it is put to, gives a fair idea as to whether it is "Consumer goods". Applying these parameters, he has held the impugned goods to be consumer goods. However, considering the fact that similar goods were cleared without licence at Mumbai Custom House, he has taken a lenient view and has imposed a very nominal fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs on the impugned goods worth more than Rs. 52 Lakhs (CIF). He has not also imposed any penalty.
2. The learned advocate for the appellants argues at length challenging the impugned order and states that the impugned goods cannot be considered as consumer goods. In support of his arguments, he cites the following case laws:-
1) Century Enka Ltd. v. C.C. Nhava Sheva -- 2001 (132) E.L.T. 494 (Tri.Mumbai.)
2) U.O.I. v. Garware Nylons Ltd. -- 1996 (87) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.)
3) Forte Lubricants (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. Mumbai -- 2999 (118) E.L.T. 587 (Tribunal)
4) Carrier Aircon Ltd. v. C.C. Raipur -- 2001 (132) E.L.T. 792 (Tri.-Del.)
5) Manik Shredomat Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. Mumbai -- 2001 (135) E.L.T. 713 (Tri.-Mumbai)
6) Forte Lubricants (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C. Mumbai -- 2000 (118) E.L.T. 587 (Tribunal)
7) Jay Industrial Company v. C.C. Bangalore -- 2002 (141) E.L.T. 437 (Tri.-Bang.)
8) C.C. New Delhi v. Sony India (P) Ltd. -- 2000 (123) E.L.T. 904 (Tribunal)
9) United Breweries Ltd. v. U.O.I. and Ors. -- 1994 (53) ECR 13 (Bombay)
10) Kwality Containers (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. Bombay -- 1987 (29) E.L.T. 304 (Tribunal).
He also submits an extract from Blacks Law Dictionary containing definition of "Consumer goods". It is the case of the appellant that the impugned goods are not consumer goods as they do not directly satisfy any human needs and that the same should be allowed to be imported freely treating them as industrial goods.
3. Shri A. Shukla, learned S.D.R. appearing for the Department refers to the Show Cause Notice (Exhibit 'C') and the catalogue (Exhibit 'F') and states that the application of the impugned goods include clear water discharge, transfer of water and garden spraying. He also states that the goods are fully finished and the machines need only to be plugged to work. He further states that the price being around Rs. 5,000/-, the goods are easily affordable by domestic consumers. He also cites the Tribunal decision in the case of Impex Syndicate v. C.C. Mumbai -- 2001 (136) E.L.T. 279 (Tri.-Mumbai) and supports the impugned order stating that the impugned goods are consumer goods and the same cannot be freely imported.
4. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records and cited decisions, we are of the view that the Commissioner has come to a correct finding that the impugned goods are consumer goods and the same cannot be allowed to be imported freely.
5. In the context of the submission by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the impugned goods do not directly satisfy human needs, we observe that the impugned goods are used for pumping water which is vitally required for human beings. Moreover, we take note of the cited decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay which states as follows:-
"The assumption of the learned counsel for the consumer goods must be one which are used as domestic appliances is in-correct. The Sodium Vapour Lamps are normally not used in the residential premises but still will not cease to be consumer goods because the consumers of Soldium Vapour Lamps are municipal corporation or airport authorities or stadium authorities. The expression 'consumer goods' cannot be limited to the consumption by domestic users. In our judgment, the adjudicating authority very rightly held that the import of Sodium Vapour Lamps squarely falls within the expression 'consumer goods'."
6. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order holding the impugned goods to be consumer goods. As regards the quantum of fine, we observe that the Adjudicating Commissioner has already taken a very lenient view in not imposing any penalty and imposing only a nominal fine and as such, the same does not call for any reduction.
7. Appeal is dismissed.