Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
Prahlad Singh Chadha vs Collector Of Customs on 5 July, 1996 cites

Colour Chem Limited vs Collector Of Customs on 10 February, 1986

In Colour Chem Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay -1986 (25) E.L.T. 549 (Tribunal) there was import of Xerox Photo Copier Model 3107 and clearance was claimed under OGL in terms of entry 5 of Appendix 10 of 1979-80 Policy. The Department held that the Photo Copiers were consumer goods, requiring specific licence. The Tribunal noticed that the expression "consumer goods" was not defined in the Policy and the expression means goods which directly satisfy human wants and goods which are so sophisticated that they require technological skill or scientific knowledge for their operation or use cannot be regarded as goods that satisfy human wants directly. The photo copier was costing Rs. 1 lakh and not an item of domestic use but employed in large offices or institutions. Accordingly it was held that the photo copier of this model could not be classified as consumer goods and could be imported under OGL. This case was decided at a time when "consumer durables" were not brought, by definition, within the purview of the expression "consumer goods", but the definition adopted by the Tribunal was broadly similar to the definition under consideration by us, except regarding the inclusion of "consumer durables".
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Indian Airlines vs Collector Of Customs on 30 January, 1987

14. In Colour Chem Ltd. - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 549 (Tribunal) the Tribunal was not required to consider any statutory definition of "consumer goods" since there was no such definition available and the meaning attributed to the expression did not take into consideration the requirement that goods, in order to be consumer goods should be capable of satisfying human wants without further processing. The contention that the goods should be so capable without further processing is an important element in the present statutory definition and the emphasis in the case was on the photo copier of a particular model. This decision is, therefore, of no assistance in deciding whether the goods in question in this case are consumer goods. The Indian Airlines case -1988 (38) E.L.T. 679 (Tribunal) did not consider the connotation of the expression "consumer goods" or the application of that connotation to that case and is, therefore, of no assistance. So also the case of Foreign Fashion -1989 (40) E.L.T. 124 "* (Tribunal). The importer in Resham Singh Brothers -1989 (41) E.L.T. 171 of tyres, tubes and flaps was an actual user non-industrial and required the goods for c servicing and purporting to follow Colour Chem Ltd. and Indian Airlines the Tribunal took the view that the goods cannot be considered as common purpose consumer goods meant directly for satisfying human needs. It is puzzling to note that the decision introduced the words "common purpose" to qualify the expression "consumer goods" and did not take into consideration the requirement that the goods do not need further processing. The emphasis was on the requirement of servicing of vehicles. The three-Member Bench in Basant Export Corporation - 1989 (43) E.L.T. 65 (Tribunal) took note of the fact that Sodium Vapour Lamps were not used for the purpose of manufacturing any product but were used in street lighting with other accessories and fittings which took them out of the category of components and brought them within the category of "consumer goods". The lamps as such were to be used in street lights, of course, with some accessories. Therefore, it was held that they directly satisfy human needs for electrification without further processing. In other f words, the fact they required to be fitted with or to some other items did not have any significance.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Trident Television Private Limited vs Collector Of Customs on 16 December, 1988

In Trident Television Private Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 24 (Calcutta HC) the first writ petitioner imported 540 Colour Picture Tubes and 500 sets of Plastic moulded parts and the second writ petitioner imported 500 sets of PCBs, sub-assemblies, speakers and accessories. The second petitioner was director of first petitioner. Both were manufacturers of TV sets, had import licences as actual users and claimed eligibility to import items listed in Appendix 6 of 1985-88 Policy actual users as also as transferees of certain REPs. The department's contention that the goods were not spares but complete TV sets in SKD condition, not covered by OGL was rejected by the High Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tara Chand Gupta -1983 (13) E.L.T. 1456. It was also held that there was no restriction of OGL items under OGL and the restricted items against valid licences and even if all the items were put together, would make complete TV sets, they cannot be considered nationally as complete TV sets. It was further held that the imported goods would not satisfy human need without further processing and such processing would be required before the complete TV set could come into existence and as such they cannot be regarded as "consumer goods".
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Tata Engineering And Locomotive Co. Ltd vs State Of Bihar And Others on 25 February, 1964

15. As indicated by the Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. case -1994 (74) E.L.T. 193, tyres, by themselves are finished products, though they may be inputs to make vehicles operational. Tyres, by themselves and without further processing can directly satisfy human needs by using them to make vehicles operational. Therefore, tyres have to be regarded as consumer goods. This conclusion is supported by .two other circumstances. As per serial No. (1) of Part A of Paragraph 156 all consumer goods are restricted items and, therefore, cannot be imported under OGL. Part A also contains another list of freely importable goods and this list includes all types of tyres of bus, truck and earthmoving machinery. This would suggest that but for the inclusion of tyres of bus and other enumerated vehicles in the list of freely importable goods, they would fall within the meaning of the expression "all consumer goods". That being so, tyres of cars also must be regarded as "consumer goods". We have looked into "ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import items" 1st April 1992 - 31st March 1997, published by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. Paragraph 3 of the Foreword I states :
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 149 - P B Gajendragadkar - Full Document

Shiv Shakti Enterprises vs Collector Of Customs on 31 August, 1990

18. In regard to valuation, learned counsel for appellant contended that transaction value as shown in the invoice has some sanctity and the burden is on the department to collect evidence to show that the invoice value is not genuine or below ordinary price in international trade at the time and place of import and no such reliable evidence has been produced in this case. This proposition cannot be applied to cases of import where description is substantially inadequate, incomplete or erroneous. In such a case the question of accepting transaction value does not arise. The importers, though called upon to do so, did not produce Manufacturer's price list or invoice. In these circumstances, rejection of invoice prices was justified. See Shiv Shakti Enterprises v. Collector of Customs -1992 (52) E.L.T. 439 (Tri.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 17 - Full Document
1   2 Next