TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Imported goods not considered spares under policy guidelines</h1> <h3>MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILISERS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY</h3> MANGALORE CHEMICALS & FERTILISERS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY - 1988 (34) E.L.T. 676 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Interpretation of the term 'spares' under OGL Appendix 10(4) of the Import Policy.2. Whether the goods imported by the appellants qualify as spares permissible for import under OGL.3. Application of the definition of 'spares' as per the policy and relevant provisions of the Handbook of Import and Export Procedures.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods as spares under the Open General Licence (OGL) Appendix 10(4) of the Import Policy. The appellants, M/s. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd., imported certain kits seeking clearance as spare parts of machinery under OGL. However, customs objected to the clearance, stating that the goods were not spares and thus not permissible for import under OGL. The Asstt. Collector of Customs ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The appellants appealed to the Collector (Appeals) and subsequently to the Tribunal, challenging the classification of the imported goods as non-spare items.During the appeal, the appellant's representative, Shri Gandhi, argued that the imported goods were necessary for maintaining the capital assets and should be considered as spares. He referred to relevant provisions in the Handbook of Import and Export Procedures to support his argument. However, the respondent's representative, Shri Pal, contended that the goods did not meet the definition of spares as per the policy and were actually consumables, which were not permitted for import under OGL. Shri Pal highlighted specific conditions under Appendix 10(4) and emphasized that consumables could only be imported by specific units mentioned in the policy.The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and examining the policy provisions, concluded that the goods imported did not qualify as spares under the defined policy terms. The Tribunal emphasized that the definition of spares as a part for substitution must be adhered to unless the context requires a different interpretation. It was noted that the imported goods did not meet the criteria of being parts required for maintenance of capital goods. Despite the appellant's contention that the goods were needed for maintenance, the Tribunal found that they did not fit the definition of spares permitted for import under OGL Appendix 10(4). The Tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the goods could not be considered as spares within the policy framework, and upheld the decision of the lower authorities regarding confiscation and fine.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the strict interpretation of the term 'spares' as per the policy guidelines and the Handbook provisions. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the defined definitions and criteria for classifying imported goods under specific categories, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal in favor of the customs authorities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
