1996 (10) TMI 194 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Classifies Machine, Reduces Fine, Emphasizes Import Rules

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the imported machine should be classified as a Zeiser Ticket and Label Printing Machine ... Confiscation - Misdeclaration of goods - Import - OGL Issues:1. Classification of imported goods - Zeiser Ticket and Label Printing Machine vs. Matrix Printer.2. Requirement of a license for the CODATEST device.3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine by the Collector of Customs.Classification of Imported Goods:The appeal challenged the Collector of Customs' decision regarding the imported goods, which were claimed to be a Zeiser Ticket and Label Printing Machine but were identified as a Matrix Printer upon examination. The appellants argued that the CODATEST device was necessary for effective printing and that the main machine was indeed a Ticket and Label printing machine, supported by the invoice and technical literature. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Collector's findings and concluded that the machine should be considered a Ticket and Label printing machine, granting the benefit of doubt to the appellant.Requirement of a License for CODATEST Device:The Revenue contended that the CODATEST device, imported separately, was not covered under the Open General License (OGL) and thus required a license. The Tribunal acknowledged the necessity of the device for quality control but agreed that it did not fall under the OGL. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the requirement of a license for the CODATEST device, despite reducing the fine imposed by the Collector.Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Fine:The Collector of Customs confiscated the goods but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 1,50,000. The Tribunal, after analyzing the nature of the imported machines and the necessity of the CODATEST device, upheld the confiscation only in relation to the CODATEST device. The fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000, considering the circumstances and the licensing requirement for the device. The appeal was disposed of with this modification.This judgment highlights the importance of accurate classification of imported goods, the necessity of licenses for specific devices, and the authority of the Collector of Customs in confiscation matters, while also emphasizing the role of technical details and documentation in such disputes.