Spare parts classification requires reliable proof; substantial machinery sections were denied OGL benefit, while personal penalties failed

Imported goods claimed as spares were treated as substantial machinery sections rather than ordinary replaceable parts because their size, weight, composition and the absence of a supporting Chartered Engineer's certificate did not prove entitlement to OGL clearance. The restriction on goods imported against a licence being new goods was applied, so the denial of OGL benefit and confiscation with redemption fine were sustained. Personal penalties were, however, set aside because deliberate misdeclaration was not established with sufficient certainty where the importers had consistently claimed the goods were spares.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were entitled to clearance as spare parts under the import policy and were not hit by the restriction that goods imported against a licence must be new goods; (ii) Whether personal penalties were sustainable in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were entitled to clearance as spare parts under the import policy and were not hit by the restriction that goods imported against a licence must be new goods.

Analysis: The goods were claimed as spares for an electrolytic tinning line, but their size, weight, nature and composition showed them to be substantial sections of machinery rather than ordinary spare parts. In the absence of a supporting Chartered Engineer's certificate and adequate material showing that each item was only a replaceable spare of a specific section, the claim for OGL clearance was not established. The restriction under Para 5(3)(iii) of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955 was treated as applicable, and the goods could not be accepted as permissible old and used spares for import under OGL.

Conclusion: The denial of OGL benefit and the confiscation with redemption fine were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether personal penalties were sustainable in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Although there was no declaration that the goods were old and used, the importers consistently claimed that the goods were spares and the dispute turned on classification and policy entitlement. In these circumstances, the element of deliberate misdeclaration was not established with sufficient certainty to justify penal action.

Conclusion: The personal penalties were set aside and the amounts, if paid, were ordered to be refunded.

Final Conclusion: The importers failed on the classification question and the confiscation was sustained, but they obtained relief against the personal penalties on the ground of doubt as to deliberate misdeclaration.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported goods claiming the status of spare parts must be shown, by reliable evidence, to be replaceable parts of a specific machinery or section; absent such proof, substantial items may be treated as non-spare machinery and the benefit of OGL denied, while penalty requires clear proof of deliberate misdeclaration.

---