1985 (2) TMI 136 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules Xerox copier not consumer goods, allows clearance.

COLOUR CHEM LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

COLOUR CHEM LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 549 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Confiscation of Xerox Photo Copier Model 3107 for clearance without a license.2. Classification of the photocopier as consumer goods.3. Interpretation of the term 'consumer goods' under the relevant policy book.4. Comparison with similar imports cleared under Open General License (OGL).5. Consideration of the definition of consumer goods and application to the photocopier in question.Analysis:1. The Additional Collector of Customs ordered the confiscation of the Xerox Photo Copier Model 3107 imported by the appellants for clearance without a license as per the Import Trade Control Policy Book. The appellants contended that the goods fell under entry No. 5 of the policy relating to research institutions, not consumer items. The Central Board of Excise & Customs upheld the decision, leading to a Revision Application transferred to the Tribunal under the Customs Act.2. The appellants argued that the photocopier did not qualify as consumer goods, citing the Concise Oxford Dictionary definition. They referenced other imports cleared under OGL and a certificate from the Industrial Adviser supporting their claim. The SDR countered, stating that durable consumer goods were still consumer items, listing examples like washing machines and computers, and supported the Collector's decision.3. The SDR highlighted Appendix 10's condition 4, prohibiting the import of consumer goods under OGL. He argued that even durable goods could be considered consumer items, mentioning electronic items listed as such in Appendix 3. The Tribunal considered the lack of a specific definition of consumer goods in the policy book, noting the distinction between goods directly satisfying human wants and technologically advanced items like calculators.4. The SDR differentiated the appellants' photocopier from other imports, claiming it was a different category of machine. He also noted that the clarification from the Directorate General of Industrial Development referred to a subsequent policy period, although the policies were similar. The Tribunal carefully considered these points in the decision-making process.5. After evaluating both parties' arguments, the Tribunal analyzed the nature of consumer goods and the photocopier's intended use. They determined that the photocopier, being a high-cost item for office or institutional use, did not directly satisfy human wants and was not for domestic use. Thus, the Tribunal classified the photocopier as other than consumer goods, allowing the appeal and granting relief to the appellants based on the specific characteristics and intended use of the imported photocopier.