TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (4) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Customs House. The Additional Collector denied the request for assessment under Project Report and ordered assessment of the goods on merit. He also ordered confiscation of the imported goods under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. He gave the option to redeem the goods on payment of fine in lieu of confiscation of Rs.2 lakhs. 3. The grounds for making this order as listed in the show cause notice and in the discussions made by the Additional Collector were as follows : (i)  That the imported goods were not completed equipment but that they were parts of the full machinery. As such they were not covered under the import licence. (ii) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a compressor or a fan was not regulated or standardised. Very low pressure rise machines would probably be classified as fans and very high pressure rise machines would be classified as compressors, whereas intermediate pressure rise machines could be classified as either. running (sic) from the same extract he claimed that compressors were ventilator, exhauster and blower. Ld. Advocate stated that users of the machinery namely IPCL in their letter dated 29-11-1986 have accepted the machinery imported by them to be a complete compressor. The survey certificate dated 28-11-1986 also certifies that the impugned goods were exactly as per the packing list and the invoice of the supplier. The certificate further stated that even though the supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has opined that artificial cooling was not an essential factor for the design and working of a compressor. With the new technology there were compressors having in-built design which cools the compressed gases. In the catalogue of the supplier also, it was listed that the convertion cooling of the machine service was sufficient within the standard load range. Ld. Advocate further claimed that there was no justification either for refusal to assess the goods under Project Import or for confiscation of the impugned goods. On both counts he requested for appropriate relief. 6. Shri A.T. Usman, ld. DR reiterated the logic of the original authority. He claimed that only a complete machine if imported would qualify for assessment as Project Imp....