2005 (12) TMI 492 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported second-hand photocopier machines as consumer goods or capital goods.
2. Interpretation of clarificatory circular of the DGFT and its impact on the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision.
3. Validity of the first appellate authority's decision setting aside orders of confiscation and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the classification of the imported second-hand photocopier machines as either consumer goods or capital goods. Initially, the machines were treated as consumer goods, leading to their confiscation and penalties imposed on the importers. However, the first appellate authority reversed this decision, determining that the machines were capital goods not requiring a specific import license. This classification was crucial in deciding the fate of the appeals.

2. The second issue concerns the interpretation of a clarificatory circular issued by the DGFT. The circular clarified that certain earlier circulars were general in nature and not specific to the Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) scheme. The circular's impact on a prior Larger Bench decision was debated, with the department arguing that the decision should not apply to the current cases due to the new circular. However, the appellant contested this argument by pointing out that the government had adopted the Larger Bench decision, effectively amending the current Exim Policy.

3. Finally, the validity of the first appellate authority's decision setting aside the orders of confiscation and penalty was challenged in the present application seeking a stay of the impugned order. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, emphasizing that the Larger Bench decision regarding the import of second-hand photocopier machines as capital goods under the general provisions of the Exim Policy still stood. Consequently, the application for a stay of the impugned order was dismissed, affirming the decision in line with the Larger Bench ruling.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the classification of imported goods, the impact of administrative circulars on judicial decisions, and the importance of consistency in interpreting trade policies and regulations.