Import classification of wheel alignment systems: extra rear-wheel capability does not defeat licence coverage, but notification benefit was denied.

Wheel alignment equipment capable of testing front and rear wheels remained covered by the Open General Licence description for front wheel alignment testing, because additional rear-wheel capability did not by itself remove the goods from the permitted import category; on that basis, confiscation and redemption fine were unsustainable. The same equipment was not entitled to Notification No. 243/78-Cus. as a noise and vibration measuring system, because it was a distinct commercial product used for wheel alignment and not for measuring engine-related noise or vibration; incidental noise or vibration effects from misalignment did not alter its classification. The import was therefore treated as eligible for licence clearance but not for the notification benefit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the import of a wheel alignment system was entitled to clearance under Open General Licence when it was capable of testing both front and rear wheel alignment; (ii) Whether the goods fell within Notification No. 243/78-Cus. as noise and vibration measuring system.

Issue (i): Whether the import of a wheel alignment system was entitled to clearance under Open General Licence when it was capable of testing both front and rear wheel alignment.

Analysis: The relevant import policy permitted Open General Licence for front wheel alignment testing system. The equipment imported was capable of testing front wheel alignment, though it could also test rear wheel alignment. Capability to test rear wheels did not by itself take away its coverage under the permitted description.

Conclusion: The denial of Open General Licence clearance on this ground was not sustainable, and the confiscation and redemption fine could not be retained on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods fell within Notification No. 243/78-Cus. as noise and vibration measuring system.

Analysis: The wheel alignment system was a distinct commercial product. Noise and vibration measuring equipment relates to parameters of engine functioning, whereas a wheel alignment system serves a different function. Any incidental noise or vibration arising from wheel misalignment did not convert the goods into noise and vibration measuring system.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was rightly denied.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of setting aside confiscation and redemption fine, while the denial of duty exemption was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A product remains within the permitted import description if it satisfies that description, even if it has additional capabilities, but exemption by notification cannot be extended to a fundamentally different product merely because of incidental functional overlap.

---