1999 (1) TMI 115 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows 'Camphor' import under OGL, emphasizing industrial use. Precedents support importer's position.

The Tribunal upheld the decision allowing the import of 'Camphor' under OGL, emphasizing that the manner of packing and use as a plasticizer did not ... Import - OGL Issues:1. Interpretation of whether 'Camphor' can be imported under OGL.2. Determination of whether 'Camphor' qualifies as consumer goods.3. Consideration of relevant judgments and legal precedents in deciding the case.Issue 1: Interpretation of whether 'Camphor' can be imported under OGLThe case involved an appeal by the Department against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowing the import of 'Camphor' under OGL. The Department argued that a clarification issued by the DGFT stated that 'Camphor' cannot be imported under OGL. The Collector (Appeals) reversed the findings of the adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal of the respondents, who were using 'Camphor' as a plasticizer in their factory. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, emphasizing that the manner of packing and method of packing could not be the sole reason for determining whether the goods could be imported under license or not. The focus was on whether the goods fell within the categories of appendices mentioned in the Import Policies at the time.Issue 2: Determination of whether 'Camphor' qualifies as consumer goodsThe Department contended that 'Camphor' should not be considered consumer goods based on the manner of packing and selling. They argued that the goods were used as raw material for manufacturing synthetic resin and were not directly sold to consumers. The Tribunal agreed, highlighting that when a material is used for industrial purposes and can also be used for other purposes, it does not fall under the category of consumer goods. The Tribunal emphasized that any doubt should be in favor of the importer, especially when the imported material is used for manufacturing the final product.Issue 3: Consideration of relevant judgments and legal precedentsBoth parties referred to various judgments to support their arguments. The Department cited a judgment of the Bombay High Court regarding the treatment of sodium vapor lamps as consumer goods, while the respondents relied on a judgment of the Tribunal in a similar case. The Tribunal found the judgment of the Tribunal in the similar case more relevant, emphasizing that when an item is used as raw material for manufacturing other goods, it cannot be considered consumer goods. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Department, upholding the impugned order based on the evidence presented, despite some discrepancies in the Collector (Appeals) observations regarding packing.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the case.