1992 (9) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Customs Appeal Upheld: Duty Exemption Denied for Life-Saving Equipment

The court upheld the confiscation of the consignment of 'Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus Oxy' under the Import Policy. The appellants' claim for ... Import - OGL Issues:1. Confiscation of consignment under Import Policy.2. Interpretation of exemption notification and OGL.3. Claim for exemption from duty on life-saving equipment.4. Imposition of fine and penalty under Customs Act.Analysis:1. The judgment involves an appeal against the confiscation of a consignment of 'Compressed Air Breathing Apparatus Oxy' under the Import Policy. The Additional Collector imposed a fine and penalty, denying clearance under OGL Appendix 6, List 2, Item 6 of the 1990-93 Import Policy. The appellants contested the decision, arguing that the goods were life-saving equipment due to their oxygen content, despite manufacturer instructions to the contrary.2. The interpretation of the exemption notification and OGL was crucial in this case. The appellants relied on legal precedents to support their claim that the goods should be considered life-saving equipment based on the heading and description. The judgment emphasized the need for strict construction of exemptions and highlighted that ambiguous words in statutes can be explained by headings but not control plain words.3. The claim for exemption from duty on life-saving equipment was central to the dispute. The judgment delved into the significance of the goods being categorized as life-saving equipment under the OGL and exemption notification. The manufacturer's instructions and intended use of the apparatus were considered in determining eligibility for the exemption, ultimately leading to the denial of the claim by the Additional Collector.4. The imposition of a fine and penalty under the Customs Act was also addressed in the judgment. The appellants failed to provide evidence to challenge the penalties imposed by the Additional Collector. Reasons for the penalty, including deliberate mis-declaration and evasion of duty, were cited as justifications for upholding the fine and penalty. The lack of supporting material from the appellants led to the rejection of the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the confiscation of the consignment, emphasizing the strict interpretation of exemption notifications and the classification of goods as life-saving equipment under the Import Policy. The appellants' failure to substantiate their claims resulted in the rejection of the appeal and the affirmation of the penalties imposed by the Additional Collector.