2007 (4) TMI 537 - AT - Customs

Imported Caterpillar engines not deemed capital goods under Foreign Trade Policy; appeal rejected, confiscation upheld.

SHIV-VANI OIL & GAS EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., MUMBAI

SHIV-VANI OIL & GAS EXPLORATION SERVICES LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS., MUMBAI - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 714 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:The issue involves the classification of imported second-hand Caterpillar engines as capital goods for exemption under Sr. No. 218 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, leading to the confiscation of the engines and imposition of fines and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.Details of the Judgment:The appellants, engaged in oil exploration services, imported two second-hand Caterpillar engines from Dubai for drilling operations under a contract with ONGC. The Commissioner confiscated the engines, stating they cannot be treated as capital goods without a valid license. The appellants claimed exemption under the Foreign Trade Policy's definition of capital goods, which includes machinery required for production or services. They argued that the engines, used for drilling oil and gas, qualify as capital goods under this definition. Additionally, they contended that the engines could be considered as part of a rig or as plant and machinery, citing legal precedents and dictionary meanings to support their position.The learned SDR opposed the appellants' arguments, stating that the Foreign Trade Policy's definition of capital goods does not explicitly include parts like engines. He emphasized that the definition should not be expanded to include parts based on the inclusion of accessories. Referring to Supreme Court decisions on different laws, he argued that the engines, not being directly used for production or manufacturing, do not meet the criteria for capital goods. He also highlighted specific Tribunal decisions where diesel engines were not considered capital goods.The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and concluded that the Foreign Trade Policy's definition of capital goods should be followed, without importing interpretations from other laws or dictionary meanings. It differentiated between the requirements of the Foreign Trade Policy and other Acts like Income-tax and Employees Liability Acts. The Tribunal found that the engines did not meet the criteria of capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy, as they were not directly required for manufacturing or production. It dismissed the appeal based on the specific precedents where similar engines were not considered capital goods, rejecting the appellants' arguments.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, ruling that the imported Caterpillar engines did not qualify as capital goods under the Foreign Trade Policy's definition. The appeal was rejected, and the confiscation of the engines along with fines and penalties was upheld.