SIGMA ELECTRONICS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise from the common impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Customs), Jaipur dated 22 -2 -1999. By the impugned order confiscation of a certain quantity of Populated Circuit Board (PCB) under Section 112(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was ordered with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs.10,000/ -. Personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - was imposed on the importers, namely M/s. Sigma Electronics, Jaipur and an additional penalty of Rs. 5,000/ - was imposed on Shri Vasudev Moolrajni, partner in the appellant firm.

(2.) SHRI R.S. Krishna Kumar, ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the Commissioner has given findings in favour of the appellants on almost all the points in dispute. But has still ordered confiscation of the impugned goods and imposed penalties on the appellants. He submits that the Commissioner has given the finding that PCB were in the negative list at the material time in terms of paragraph 156 of the ITC Policy and the appellants have not furnished any specific import licence at the time of importation. In this connection, he refers to sub paragraph 3 at page 3 of the impugned order wherein the Commissioner has himself observed that 1,01,000 pieces of ECBs fitted with bobbin and coil fitted with chip, crystal included in the CKD (quartz clock movement) for which the Bill of Entry No. 000044/92, dated 21 -10 -1992 had been filed. The contention of the appellant is that the PCB directed to be confiscated was not an independent item covered in the negative list which covered PCBs per se but a component of another item, viz., the Quartz Clock Movement which they had imported. The PCBs which they had imported were only one of the several components of Clock Quartz Movement. Therefore, the import of PCBs in their case did not attract the negative list since PCB was merely a component and not an independent item of import to come under the negative list. The PCBs should have been imported independently to come under the negative list. ITC Policy covers only import of PCBs per se and not when it is part of the sub -assembly for making quartz clock movement or any other final product. He therefore, submits that there is no scope for holding that the imported PCBs were liable to confiscation under Section lll(d) of the Customs Act.

(3.) LD . JDR Shri T.A. Arunachalam points out that the Commissioner himself has observed that the appellants had not imported PCBs separately. However, since PCBs were in the negative list at the material time and the appellants had not furnished any specific import licence at the time of importation, the goods had became liable to confiscation. He also draws attention to Public Notice No. 32(PN)/92 -97, dated 17 -7 -1992 (Annexure 'B' of the appeal papers). In the said Public Notice reference has been made to the Ministry of Commerce Notification 22(N -3), dated 30 -6 -1992 amending inter alia the definition of 'Consumer goods' so as to include accessories, components, parts and spares of consumer durables. PCBs already appear in the negative list. Consequent upon the amendment of the definition of 'Capital goods' ['consumer goods'] by Notification No. 22(N -3), dated 30 -6 -1992, accessories, components and spares of consumer durables, also fell within the scope of negative list as part of 'consumer goods'. In terms of paragraph 156 of Import and Export Policy 1992 -97, consumer goods are not permitted to be imported except against a licence or in accordance with a Public Notice issued in that behalf. Since PCBs imported by appellants clearly fell within the scope of the definition of 'consumer goods' (as per the Notification dated 30 -6 -1992), the Commissioner has rightly held that they are liable to confiscation and therefore, the appeals filed by the two appellants against the said order has no merit, contended the ld. JDR.