2004 (1) TMI 617 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules against Robert Bosch India Ltd.'s duty-free import appeal for Peugot-306 car

The Tribunal rejected M/s. Robert Bosch India Ltd.'s appeal regarding duty-free import eligibility under Notification No. 140/91-Cus for importing a ... Import of capital goods for development of software - Prototype car Issues:1. Duty-free import eligibility under Notification No. 140/91-Cus.2. Denial of exemption for importing a prototype car.3. Imposition of redemption fine for importing a second-hand car.4. Interpretation of 'capital goods' under the notification.5. Approval requirement from the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee.6. Relevance of the Settlement Commission's judgment on capital goods.7. Import policy procedures for second-hand motorcars.8. Correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals) order.Analysis:1. The case involved M/s. Robert Bosch India Ltd. appealing against the denial of duty-free import benefit under Notification No. 140/91-Cus. The company, a Software Technology Park Unit, imported a Peugot-306 Model car for software testing in Europe-France. The dispute arose when the Deputy Commissioner denied the exemption, and a fine was imposed for importing a second-hand car at Bangalore instead of Mumbai.2. The appellant argued that the imported car fell under 'capital goods' or 'other goods required in relation to production of export goods' as per the notification. They obtained approval from the STPI and claimed the car was essential for software development. However, the Revenue contended that the car did not qualify as capital goods and the STPI's approval was for hardware, not the car.3. The Tribunal noted that the car's import location and the redemption fine were not contested. The lower authorities correctly rejected the plea that the car qualified as capital goods. The Settlement Commission's judgment on a different notification was deemed irrelevant, as the car was not for providing services but as a prototype.4. The appellant's argument that the car was covered under Sl. No. 13 of the notification's table was refuted. The approval from the Inter-Ministerial Standing Committee was crucial, which was not evident from the documentation provided. The Commissioner (Appeals) rightly rejected the duty-free import claim for the car.5. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeals and rejected both. The judgment emphasized the specific requirements and approvals necessary under the notification for duty-free imports, highlighting the importance of accurate interpretation and compliance with the legal provisions.