Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. The Additional Commissioner did not agree with their submissions. He has held that the item can be directly used to satisfy human needs and therefore, they are in the nature of consumer goods. The Additional Commissioner referring to the Sl. No. 67(x) of Appendix 35 has observed that it satisfies "subscriber and telecom equipments." The specified entries include cellular telephones, cordless telephones, pagers, VSA terminals and other such electronic items. The reference to attachments for telephones would normally refer to plugs, sockets, epters for power supply, recording devices and other such equipments. He has observed that it does not refer to leather cover for cellular telephone. He has held that when leather covers are imported separately they had to be treated on merits both for its classification and also for their eligibility for importation. Therefore, he has held that it is for this reason, that the covers had been classified under Heading 4201.00 of the Customs Tariff and not in the heading relevant for cellular telephones. He has held that these have to be treated on its own merits and certainly these are not importable against SIL as attachments for telephones. He has held that the goods had therefore, been imported without a valid licence hence they are liable for confiscation and he ordered for the same including granting them an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine and penalty as stated earlier. The Commissioner in her order has noted the appellants' plea that though the appellants have not made any claim that the leather covers imported are 'parts', 'sub-assembly' or 'assembly' of the cellular phones in terms of the aforesaid definition they had claimed that the leather covers are "attachments" on the ground that "attachments" is the same as "accessory" in the definition appearing in Para 7(i) of the Policy. She had also noted the appellants' contention that the covers for cellular phones are akin to seat covers of cars and as such the same were also accessories and being accessories were attachments and thus eligible to be imported vide Entry at Sl. No. 67(x) of Appendix XXXV of the Handbook of Procedures. Referring to this contention the Commissioner has held that she is unable to accept the logic and has not been able to persuaded herself to agree with the judgment rendered in the case of Mehra Brothers v. Joint Commercial Officer as reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 173, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of sales tax had held that seat covers of cars are motor accessories and parts of motor vehicles. The Commissioner has also held that the said judgment was delivered in the context of levy of sales tax and does not support the appellants' plea that the cellular phone covers imported are attachments for telephones freely importable under entry at Sl. No. 67(x) of Appendix XXXV of the Handbook of Procedures. She has observed that the leather covers in question are definitely not 'part', 'sub-assembly' or 'assembly' within the definition of "accessory" at Para 7(i) of the Policy as such the same are clearly not attachment/accessories permitted to be freely importable under the Policy. Referring to the appellants' plea the Commissioner held that the covers protect the phones from dust etc. and enhance the effectiveness of the phones, as such they are treated as "accessories" and are permitted to be freely imported in Para 22 of the Policy. The learned Commissioner has held that the said plea is also not acceptable, as Para 22 itself says that capital goods, raw materials, intermediates, components, consumables, spares, parts, accessories, instruments 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 of the time being in force." The learned Commissioner held that as the leather covers imported are A undoubtedly consumer goods, the said leather covers would remain restricted items for import in terms of Para 22 of the Policy even if they are regarded as accessories of cellular phones. Hence she rejected the appeal.