Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Since the introduction of Item 33-D in the First Schedule, and upto December 1, 1973, the Petitioners imported a total consignment of 161 disused Data Processing Machines. The Petitioners addressed a letter dated July 7, 1970, to the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay, in respect or the consignment of `AS IS Data Processing Machines' imported under the Licence dated may 12, 1970, and which arrived in Bombay on June 23, 1970. By this letter, the Petitioners pointed out that the counter-vailing duty is not leviable in respect of the "AS IS Machines", since they cannot be said to be complete machines. The letter further quotes the earlier order passed be by the Government of India on January 3, 1969, and it was pointed out that the "AS IS Machines" imported from abroad have already undergone their useful period of working life. The Petitioners requested the Collector of Customs to permit clearance of consignment without payment of countervailing duty. The request made by the Petitioners was turned down and the Customs authorities collected the countervailing duty on the said consignment. The Petitioners carried an appeal before the Assistant Collector of Customs. But the appeal was dismissed by order dated August 31, 1970. The Petitioners further carried a revision application before the Government of India but the same also ended in dismissal by order date October 1, 1973. The revisional authority took the view that the countervailing duty in required in respect of the Data Processing "AS IS Machines" as, even though they are not in working condition when imported, still they retain their identity as machines. It was also held that the Petitioners had declared the consignment in bills of entries as complete machines falling under Item 72(b) of the Indian Customs Tariff The revision authority further held that if the Petitioners had and claim, the same should have been made before clearness as the actual condition of the machines could have been made before clearance as the actual condition of the machines could have been verified. The revision authority felt that the earlier view taken by the Government of India t6hat the "AS IS Machines" are not machines was only for the purpose of valuation and did not determine the liability for countervailing duty. The order passed by the authorities below refusing the grant refund of the countervailing duty is under challenge in this Petition.

7. In answer to the Petition a return has been filed on behalf of the Respondents sworn by; one Mr. T. S. Panjiwani Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay. It is contended that the Data Processing Machines which were imported by the Petitioners are capable of being used as such without being dismantled. It is the claim of the Respondents that the machines so imported, though old or used or temporarily not in working condition, still they never lost their identity as DAta Processing Machines. According to the Respondents, the Petitioners are bound by their declaration of description of goods in the bills of entries and it is not open for them now to plead that the machines imported are not really machines and are not liable to countervailing duty. With reference to the previous decision of the Government of India, it is contended that the same relates to the valuation of goods and not classification. In view of these rival contentions, the crucial point for determination is weather Data Processing Machines imported by the Petitioners are machines an d are liable to counervailing duty.