2003 (6) TMI 405 - AT - Customs

Imported goods appeal ruling: 15 computers liable for duty, rest exempt. Importance of policy interpretation

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, GOA Versus WESTERN INDIA SHIPYARD LTD.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling that the imported goods, except for 15 personal computers, were not liable for confiscation and did not ... EXIM - Import without licence - EXIM - Import without licence - Import - Capital goods -Exemption Issues:1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification 211/83 and liability to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act for imported data processing machines.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Exemption:The appeal addressed the eligibility of imported goods for exemption under Notification 211/83 and the possibility of confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. The Commissioner initially deemed the goods eligible for free importation and entitled to the exemption. However, the department contended that the imported goods, consisting of 55 personal computers valued at less than Rs. 1 lakh each, required an import license as per the policy at the time. The departmental representative argued that while 15 machines could be considered personal computers, the others were part of a LAN and not individual personal computers. The Tribunal found that except for the 15 computers, the goods were permitted for importation, with the 15 computers being liable to confiscation.2. Classification as Capital Goods:The second issue revolved around whether the imported goods, elements of a LAN, could be classified as capital goods for the purposes of the exemption notification. The department argued that these goods were akin to office machines and not capital goods. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of capital goods under the Central Excise Rules and the import policy, emphasizing the broader interpretation of capital goods to include machinery or equipment directly or indirectly involved in manufacturing or production. It was concluded that the imported goods did not meet the criteria to be classified as capital goods, except for the 15 personal computers, which were liable to duty and confiscation.Final Decision:The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the imported goods, except for the 15 personal computers, were not liable for confiscation and did not qualify as capital goods for exemption. The 15 personal computers were deemed to be subject to duty and confiscation, with the importer being required to pay a redemption fine. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper classification and interpretation of policies to determine the eligibility of goods for exemptions and confiscation under relevant regulations.