Import Tribunal Upholds Decision on Calendering Machine Import

The Tribunal dismissed both the importer and department's appeals regarding the import of a calendering machine without a license for the packaging material sector. The Tribunal found that the machine did not fall under the exemption for import without a license as argued by the importer. Additionally, the department's appeal based on under-declaration and manipulation issues not originally raised were not considered valid grounds for overturning the Collector's decision. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of interpreting policy terms in common understanding and requiring appeals to be directly linked to the original order for consideration.

---

---

Issues:
Import of second hand calendering machine without a license under the Import Policy 1992-97 for packaging material sector. Disagreement by the Collector leading to confiscation and redemption fine. Appeal by the importer and the department regarding the decision.

Importer's Appeal Analysis:
The importer contended that the imported machine was essential for making packaging material as it provided a smooth and glossy finish to paper, necessary for printing and enhancing marketability. The importer argued that the machine fell under the sector specified in the policy for import without a license. However, the Tribunal found that the expressions "packing" and "packaging material" were not defined in the policy and had to be understood in common terms. While acknowledging the importance of calendering for packaging material, the Tribunal did not agree with the extended interpretation proposed by the importer. The Tribunal highlighted that not all materials used in various industries could be considered packaging material solely based on their use in the packaging sector. The Tribunal emphasized that the provision for import permission was an exemption to the general rule and did not support a broad interpretation. The Tribunal concluded that the importer's arguments did not merit acceptance based on the existing policy and definitions.

Departmental Appeal Analysis:
The department's appeal was based on subsequent investigations revealing under-declaration of the machine's value and alleged manipulation in obtaining the Chartered Engineer certificate. The department argued that the redemption fine should be increased and a penalty imposed due to these findings. However, the Tribunal noted that these aspects were not part of the original grounds for confiscation and penalty proposed by the Collector. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer was not given an opportunity to address these new points, and they did not arise from the Collector's order. Consequently, the Tribunal found no justification to overturn the Collector's decision on these grounds.

Final Decision:
Both appeals, by the importer and the department, were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal clarified that the so-called cross objection filed by the importer was merely a written submission and did not require formal disposal. The judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting policy terms in common understanding and the need for issues raised in appeals to be directly linked to the original order for consideration.

---