NEW CENTURY IMPEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two appeals filed by M/s. New Century Impex, the issue involved is whether the goods imported by them are photocopying machines as confirmed by both Commissioner (Appeals) and Commissioner of Customs under the two different impugned orders or are components of photocopy machine.

(2.) Shri K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants are actual users having a small scale industry registered for the manufacture/processing/assembly of electronic goods, viz. photocopy machines, audio visual, Mini security system, electronic toys; that they imported various reconditioned components of photocopies and claimed clearance of the same against special Import Licence; that imported components constitute only 60% to 70% of the total value and they require 30% local components for assembling the imported goods into full machines; that they procure about 33 items from domestic market and without these parts the machine is not functional; that locally procured parts are not peripherals; that even peripherals are equally important as parts; that reliance has wrongly been placed in the impugned orders on Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules; that the ratio of the decision in the case of BHEL v. Collector of Customs, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 545 (T), relied upon by the Commissioner of Customs, is not applicable since in that matter the issue involved was whether the imported forgings had attained the approximate shape of the finished article; that in the present matter; the issue involved is whether the imported components are complete photocopy machines. The learned Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of B.E. Office Automation Products (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, Final Order Nos. 821 -822/2000 -A, dated 29 -9 -2000 [2000 (122) E.L.T. 908 (T)] wherein the importer imported 75% to 80% of the parts required for manufacture of photocopiers and the Tribunal did not agree with the Revenue to treat the imported goods as photocopiers. The Tribunal held that "such a case is not a case of import of a machine contemplated in Rule 2(a) of Interpretative Rules." Reliance was also placed on the following decisions -

(3.) Countering the arguments, Shri R.D. Negi, learned SDR, submitted that on examining the imported goods it was found that the Appellants had imported all the critical parts meant for photocopying machines; that 64 units comprising of the majority of the parts including essential parts with fittings and fixtures of the photocopy machine had been imported in CKD condition which had the essential character of the photocopy machines. The learned SDR relied upon the decision in the case of BHEL v. Commissioner of Customs, Madras, [1987 (28) E.L.T. 545 (T)]. He, further, submitted that for applying Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, it is not necessary that the entire machine is imported; that import of article incomplete will also be regarded as an article provided the incomplete article has the essential character of the complete article; that the Appellants had imported the most essential components. Reliance has also been placed on the following decisions :