TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Importing components as video cameras in CKD condition not needing specific license</h1> The Tribunal held that the appellant's imports of components and sub-assemblies were not complete video cameras in CKD condition requiring a specific ... Import - Sub-assemblies of video camera sets imported in different consignment Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported goods.2. Requirement of specific licence for import.3. Misdeclaration of value.4. Applicability of previous judicial decisions.Summary:1. Classification of Imported Goods:The appellant imported five consignments of components and sub-assemblies of C.C.T.-video Camera, one consignment under R.E.P. Licence and the others under OGL. The authorities held that the import constituted complete sets of video cameras in CKD condition, which required a specific licence as per Entry 122 of Appendix 2 Part B of the 1985-88 Import Policy. The appellant contended that the imports were of components and sub-assemblies, not complete video cameras, and were covered under various entries allowing import under OGL.2. Requirement of Specific Licence for Import:The lower authorities and the Departmental Representative argued that the imported goods, when assembled, formed complete video cameras in CKD condition, requiring a specific licence which the appellant did not possess. The appellant argued that the imports were valid under the respective licences and OGL provisions.3. Misdeclaration of Value:The Deputy Collector of Customs found the invoice value to be low and ordered confiscation, fixing a redemption fine of rupees two lakhs and levying duty on the basis of the loaded value. This order was confirmed by the Collector (Appeals).4. Applicability of Previous Judicial Decisions:The Tribunal examined several judicial decisions, including:- Girdharilal Bansidhar v. Union of India (AIR 1964 SC 1519): The Supreme Court held that importers cannot do indirectly what they are forbidden to do directly.- Union of India v. Tara Chand Gupta and Brothers (1983 (13) E.L.T. 1456): The Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific restrictions, all kinds of parts and accessories could be imported under a licence.- Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs (1990 (49) E.L.T. 640): The Supreme Court dealt with a case of import in CKD condition of prohibited goods, which was a fraud on the Import Policy.- Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Mitsuny Electronic Works (1987 (30) E.L.T. 345): The High Court held that individual licences should be considered for each consignment, not the fact that all consignments together form complete sets.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that each Bill of Entry must be considered with reference to the specific licence or OGL provisions. There was no restriction in the policy against import of sub-assemblies or assemblies in CKD condition. The Department had no case that video cameras were prohibited items. Therefore, it was not open to the Department to contend that the goods imported under all the Bills of Entry, if put together, would constitute video cameras in CKD condition requiring a specific licence. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
