TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (6) TMI 231
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ools falling in the category of 'capital goods' and therefore, requires a specific licence and the licence produced was not valid. 3. After the issue of show cause notice and after the receipt of reply to the show cause notice, the Deputy Collector of Customs, who held the inquiry did not accept the appellants' contention that the goods imported by them are covered by Sl. No. 547(8) and 547(17) of Appendix 5 of the Policy. He, therefore, ordered confiscation. But then, since some tools were allowed clearance in the past, he allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs.50,000/-. 4. The appellants carried the matter in appeal to the Collector (Appeals) unsuccessfully. Hence this appeal. 5. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri Shenoy firstly submitted that identical tools were imported during the year 1979 under the Policy AM-79. The Customs authorities allowed clearance against the licence which was also identical to the licence produced in the instant case. Shri Shenoy submitted that the Policy regarding the import of tools was identical both during the Policy period AM 1979 as well as during the Policy Period AM 1982. Shri Shenoy submitted that under the Policy AM 79 the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... pneumatically operated torque wrenches meant for operating, tightening nuts, and bolts where precision torque is required. Shri Shenoy also placed reliance on the definition of 'torque wrenches' and 'Impactool' given in McGraw Hill Technical Dictionary to substantiate his contention that the goods imported were nothing but torque wrenches. 7. Shri Prabhu, appearing for the Collector, however, supported the orders passed by the authorities below. Shri Prabhu submitted that upto the Policy Period 1982 and particularly during the Policy periods of 1978-79, 1980-81 portable pneumatic tools which included impactools were allowed to be imported under OGL. But in the Policy period 1982, pneumatic took were not allowed to be imported under OGL or under Appendix 5 and as such the appellants ought to have obtained specific import licence before importing the tools in question. Shri Prabhu urged that there is difference between "hand tools" and "pneumatic tools'. The hand tools are assessable under Chapter 82 of the Customs Tariff Act whereas the pneumatic tools are assessable under Chapter-84 of the said Act. Shri Prabhu contended that this aspect was considered by the Deputy Collector i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uts to pre-determined levels of torque". 10. By production of these certificates as well as by production of catalogue the appellants had contended that what they had imported are torque wrenches which is covered by Item 547(17) of Appendix 5 of the Policy AM-82 and therefore their licence is valid. In the invoice the goods had not been described as torque wrenches. The description given in the invoice is 'Impactool'. Impactool appears to be a brand name. The appellants did not produce the copy of the order placed with the foreign supplier. If produced, it could have shown as to what was the goods for which they had indented. There is no satisfactory evidence that the goods imported are torque wrenches. 11. The question still remains is whether they are hand tools. It was contended that the goods imported were required for tightening the nuts and bolts. Relying on the catalogue it was further contended that the tools are held in hand and operation is carried out. Therefore it is urged that the tools are hand tools. 12. In the Policy, the expression "hand tools" is not defined. The expression "hand tools" appears to have been employed to distinguish from "machine tools". Ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The Collector (Appeals) in his order states - "Considering the market price of the goods, the fine of Rs. 50,000/- is not excessive". The Deputy Collector did not state as to the market price of the imported goods. It is not clear where-from the Collector (Appeals) got the market price. What had been missed by the Collector (Appeals) is the contention of the appellants that prior to the import in question identical import made by them were cleared without taking any objection. This contention of the appellants was accepted by the Deputy Collector. During the hearing, the appellants have contended that the import of identical items during the Policy AM 79 had been cleared without any objection against the identical licence. It was urged that the Policy during AM-79 and AM-82 in so far as they relate to the import of the tools are also identical. It was urged that Items 547(8) and 547(17) of the Policy AM-82 correspond to Item 472(5) and 472(6) of Appendix 5 of the Policy, AM-79. Similarly, Item 578 of Appendix 3 of AM-82 correspond to Item 724(xv) of Appendix 3 of the Policy AM-79. 18. Shri Prabhu appearing for the Collector did not controvert the said submissions of the ap....