1998 (11) TMI 250 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay
2. Classification of Imported Goods
3. Valuation of Imported Goods
4. Violation of Import and Export Policy

Condonation of Delay:
The supplementary appeals arise from the same order-in-original. The COD applications have been filed for condonation of the delay in filing the supplementary appeals as the appellants were required to file as many appeals as the BEs involved in the case. As per the practice of the Tribunal, the delay in filing the supplementary appeals is condoned, since the common appeal filed earlier was in time.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellants imported four consignments of components of washing machines and claimed classification under Heading 8450.90 as components of washing machines. The Assistant Commissioner issued a show cause notice, alleging that the items imported could constitute the essential character of a washing machine and should be assessed as such under Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Schedule. It was found that the goods were packed in such a way that they appeared as a washing machine and that the import of consumer goods in SKD condition is restricted under the import policy. The Commissioner held that the items had attained the essential character of washing machines and classified them under Heading 8450.19, invoking Rule 2(a). The Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 8450.19, stating that the items had acquired the essential character of a finished washing machine.

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The importers declared the value for washing drum/drying drum as DHS 56 (equivalent to Rs. 290/- set). The department found that similar components were being imported at higher prices and adjusted the value to Rs. 450/- per set. The Commissioner fixed the value at Rs. 450/- per set for washing drum/drying drum assembly under Rule 8 of Valuation Rules. The Tribunal noted that the goods imported by the appellants and those by M/s. Vijay Appliances were from different countries and could not be considered comparable. The matter was remanded to the original authority to reconsider the valuation, as the appellants had not produced necessary documents for comparison.

Violation of Import and Export Policy:
The Commissioner found that the importers did not have a valid licence for importing consumer goods in SKD condition. The goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports & Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine, noting that the importers had violated the import policy by importing washing machines in SKD condition without a valid licence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing supplementary appeals. It upheld the classification of the imported goods under Heading 8450.19, invoking Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff Schedule. The valuation aspect was remanded for reconsideration due to the lack of comparable evidence from the same country of origin. The violation of the import policy was sustained, and the confiscation and redemption fine were upheld. The appeal was allowed by remand for reconsideration of valuation and related aspects.