Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)
Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 20 November, 1996 cites

Premier Automobiles Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 10 September, 1996

6. The licence granted in favour of the appellant referred to warranty of spares "for the purpose of providing warranty coverage for after sales service to their customers only such spares shall be permitted as were/are used by the unit as components of the said items at the time of manufacture subject to the condition that the goods imported against this licence shall be used only for the servicing and maintenance of (whether free of cost or at a price) of the machinery equipment, vehicles manufactured by the licensee." The licence makes it clear that spares needed for a particular purpose alone could be imported. The purpose mentioned was providing warranty coverage or after sales service to customers. The nature of spares was also restricted. The licence allowed import of only such spares as were/are used by the unit as components at the time of manufacture. The language used in the licence makes it clear that spares could be imported to replace components in already manufactured machine if the manufacturers components' had been used in such vehicles. We find that the Tribunal had taken the same view in an earlier case of the appellants which is reported in Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Collector -1995 (75) E.L.T. 146 (Tribunal). It is submitted that Reference Application moved before the Tribunal has been dismissed and Reference Application is pending before the High Court. We have already indicated the language of the licence would clearly show that import would be admissible if imported components had been used in the vehicles and not otherwise. It is admitted that the vehicles manufactured did not contain imported components but contained only indigenously manufactured components. We therefore agree with the Collector that the import constituted violation of ITC Policy and the licence condition.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

India Airlines Corporation vs Collector Of Customs on 16 December, 1982

9. We have already referred to the first letter dated 8-2-1985 specifically dealing with Spare Parts Prices sent by the manufacturer shortly before the MOU and the first and second purchase order. The letter disclosed that manufacturer would offer 35% discount on the price list prices to the appellant. This is supported by the contents of second letter as well as the certificate. Department has no case that there are other Collaborators of M/s. Nissan in India or that or there were other wholesale of importers of Nissan spare parts in India and that such importers were not allowed the discount offered to Collaborators. Our attention is invited to the decision of the Tribunal in Indian Airlines Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 923 (Tribunal). Appellant in that case claimed discount of 28% shown in the invoice and this claim was rejected on the ground that it was a special discount not available to all buyers. Appellant was sole importer of the goods into India. Tribunal held that since there were no other importers of such goods in the country, the question of discount being treated as special did not arise. On this basis discount was allowed. Quantity discount in the International trade is a well-known concept which is accepted by authorities. Quantity discount very often may involve classification. If there are different quantity discounts depending on the quantity imported such classification is based on the quantities imported. Similarly there could be other differences between imports or importers which could have an impact on the price structure. One such difference has arisen in the present case, namely, the Collaborator and other importers. It is not known that there were wholesale importers other than Collaborators though, it is common case that there could be retail importers who import spare parts for their own vehicles. If that be so, essentially the distinction is between the Collaborators who are wholesale importers and retail importers. The concept in International trade is essentially one of whole sale trade, though there could be individual or retail imports also. We are dealing in this appeal with a case of import at a wholesale level. If at the same level discount is offered to other similar importers in any country, the same cannot be regarded as special discount offered to particular importer. The only thing special about the appellant is the fact that there is a Collaboration Agreement and MOU between the parties. This quality is not something personal to the appellant. There could be other Collaborators also outside India. This discount is available to all such Collaborators and cannot be regarded as a special discount offered to a particular buyer. In these circumstances we agree with the appellant that the discount is allowable.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1