1994 (3) TMI 227 - AT - Customs

Imported Smoke Sensors Classified as Sensors under OGL List | Appeal Allowed for Import

AUTOALARM INDUSTRIES Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY

The Tribunal determined that the imported goods, described as Ionisation Smoke Sensors for Detectors, were classified as sensors under the Open General ... Departmental clarification - Import Policy Issues Involved:1. Classification of the imported goods as sensors or instruments.2. Requirement of a specific import license.3. Admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage.4. Past practice and precedent in import clearance.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of the Imported Goods as Sensors or Instruments:The primary issue revolves around whether the imported goods, described as Ionisation Smoke Sensors for Detectors, qualify as 'sensors' or 'instruments.' The appellants argued that the goods were components of an automatic fire detection system, lacking a built-in power source, and thus should be classified as sensors under the OGL list. The adjudicating authority, however, determined that the goods were complete units with smoke chambers, oscillators, amplifiers, and voltage regulation systems, classifying them as instruments requiring a specific import license. The Tribunal referred to the definitions in the McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, noting that sensors detect changes in physical quantities, whereas instruments measure, record, and control values. The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods acted merely as smoke detectors, falling within the category of sensors permissible for import under OGL during the relevant policy period.2. Requirement of a Specific Import License:The department objected to the clearance of the goods under OGL, asserting that they were complete instruments listed under Appx. 10, Serial No. 8 of the Import Policy AM 1985-88, and thus required a specific license. The appellants had applied for such a license, which was denied by the competent authority, stating that the goods fell under OGL. The Tribunal considered the correspondence and additional evidence, concluding that the licensing authority's opinion that the items fell within the OGL entry should be upheld. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the goods were importable under OGL without the need for a specific license.3. Admissibility of Additional Evidence at the Appellate Stage:The appellants sought to introduce additional evidence, including inter-departmental correspondence and leaflets explaining the characteristics of the imported goods. The Tribunal allowed the production of additional evidence, noting that it could provide assistance in arriving at a correct conclusion without necessitating a de novo or further factual inquiry. The correspondence, bearing official seals, was deemed reliable and relevant to the issue of whether the goods required a specific license.4. Past Practice and Precedent in Import Clearance:The appellants argued that similar goods had been cleared under OGL in the past, producing copies of Bills of Entry and citing judicial pronouncements where no redemption fine was imposed. The Tribunal acknowledged that the appellants had successfully established that these items had been cleared as OGL items in at least four previous consignments. The Tribunal noted that the appellants' classification under TI 90.24 in the Bill of Entry could not operate as estoppel against them, as the department had assessed them under TI 85.17.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the imported goods were sensors permissible for import under OGL during the relevant policy period. The appeal was allowed, and the goods were held importable under OGL, with consequential reliefs to follow.