Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether old and used office furniture imported by a service provider was liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, or whether it qualified as freely importable capital goods under the Import Policy.
Analysis: The appellant was engaged in providing services, and the definition of capital goods in the Import Policy included plant, machinery, equipment and accessories required for rendering services. The reasoning adopted from the cited precedent treated "plant" broadly as apparatus used in business, and the test was whether the article functions as a tool of the trade in carrying on the business. Applying that approach, furniture used in providing services fell within the category of capital goods for a service provider. Since the goods were covered by the policy permitting import of second-hand capital goods, confiscation was not warranted.
Conclusion: The import was held to be permissible and the confiscation proceedings were not sustainable, in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the import policy treats plant and equipment required for rendering services as capital goods, office furniture used by a service provider may qualify as freely importable capital goods and cannot be confiscated merely because it is old and used.