BE OFFICE AUTOMATION AND BHAGWAN Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five appeals, three by Be -Office Automation and two by Bhagwan Electro Photocopier, relates to proceedings against the import of photocopier main frames by the appellants. Under the impugned order, the goods were proceeded against under three counts : one relating to import control and the other two relating to classification and valuation under the Customs Act. With regard to import control, the objection raised was that the item is a sub -assembly and not component, the point being that while components are eligible for import under the OGL, sub -assembly required licence. With regard to classification, the lower authorities held that the main frame is required to be treated as a photocopier itself in terms of Rule 2(A) of Rules for the Interpretation of Tariff Schedule. On the question of valuation, the impugned orders held that the declared value is required to be enhanced and goods assessed on the basis of enhanced value.

(2.) Today when the cases came up for hearing, the earned Counsel has submitted that all these issues remain settled in favour of the assessce in terms of this Tribunal's orders. As regards the import control, the learned Counsel has referred us to Para 6 of the decision of the Larger Bench under Misc. Order No. 113/2004 -NB(A), dated 26 -4 -2004 [2004 (168) E.L.T. 465 (T -LB)] in this very appeal wherein the Tribunal noted the position on Import Control as under : -

(3.) On the question of classification, the learned Counsel has referred us to the decision of a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of one of the present appellants namely Be -Office Automation v. CCE [2000 (122) E.L.T. 908 (T) = 2001 (43) RLT 159] wherein the Tribunal noted that the main frame accounts for only 55 to 60% of a photocopier and therefore, Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules cannot be invoked for treating a main frame as photo copier. On the question of valuation, the submission of the learned Counsel is that the orders of the lower authorities state that the imports at higher value of the same goods are being observed. However, no particulars of such imports have been mentioned by way of Bill of Entry, invoice etc. The learned Counsel therefore, has submitted that in the absence of any particulars, the lower authorities were in error in rejecting the transaction value.