9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rities on the ground that the same consists of essential parts of a Motor Vehicle and, therefore, ought to be interpreted as motor vehicles. Consequently, the petitioner has been called upon to furnish a Type Certificate for release of the consignment. This has led the petitioner to file the present petition seeking release of the consignment imported by the petitioner. 3. The aforesaid controversy arises in the following context: 3.1 The petitioner company claims to be engaged in the business dealing in all types of electronic components and claims that it is one of the largest solution providers of Semiconductors and Electronic Components for the past thirty years. 3.2 The petitioner imported a consignment from China consisting of three essential parts of an E-Rickshaw: rear axle of the tricycle (500 pieces); motor (1200 pieces) and Controller (1200 pieces). The petitioner filed a bill of entry (BoE) for the said import - being BoE number 4490655 dated 20.12.2017. The said BoE was taken up for assessment and the assessing officer directed 100% examination of the consignment imported by the petitioner in presence of a Chartered Engineer. 3.3 The Chartered Engineer examined the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iction under Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, whereby certain parts of an E-Rickshaw could be construed as finished produced for the purposes of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, could not be applied to conclude that the petitioner had imported a complete E-Rickshaw for the purposes of Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. He further submitted that the petitioner was only an importer of parts and not a manufacturer of E-Rickshaws and, therefore, could not be called upon to submit a Type Certificate as required under Rule 126 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 6. He relied upon the decision of the Custom Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGCAT) in L.M.L. Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Bombay : 1999 (105) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal) and also pointed out that an appeal preferred against the said decision before the Supreme Court has been dismissed. He also relied on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Sony India Ltd. : 2008 (231) E.L.T. 385 (S.C.) and Pioneer Embroideries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai : 2015 (322) E.L.T. 602 (S.C.) in support of his contention. Reasons and Conclusion 7. Undoubtedly, the three parts (rear axl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overnment of India or Automotive Research Association of India, Pune, [or the Central Farm Machinery Testing and Training Institute, Budni (MP) or the Indian Institute of Petroleum, Dehradun, [or the Central Institute of Road Transport, Pune, or the International Centre for Automotive Technology, Manesar, or the Northern Region Farm Machinery Training and Testing and Testing Institute, Hissar (for testing of combine harvester) or the Global Automotive Research Centre, Chennai] and such other agencies as may be specified by the Central Government for granting a certificate by that agency as to the compliance of provisions of the Act and these rules:" 11. A plain reading of the aforesaid Rule indicates that it is applicable in respect of a manufacturer or an importer of motor vehicles. However, such manufacturer or importer is required to submit a prototype of the vehicle for testing by the specified organizations. Clearly, a prototype approval is not available for parts of a motor vehicle. The petitioner is an importer of certain parts of an E-Rickshaw, which are intended to be sold to manufacturers. There is merit in the petitioner's contention that it cannot obtain a type approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 12.03.2014, which is relied upon by the respondents. The same is set out below:- "C.No. VIII/ICD/TKD/6AG/104/2013/pt. Dated12.03.2014 OFFICE ORDER A Committee was constituted by Commissioner of Customs ICD 1 KD New Delhi comprising of following below mentioned officers to decide up as to what percentage of components/ assemblies combine together make Erikshaw in CKD SKD as per Rule 2 (a) of the Interpretative Rules to the first Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975. 1. Shri Karamvir singh Joint commissioner of Customs, SUR 2. Shri Gauri Shankar Sinha Deputy Commissioner of Custom, AG 3. Shri Vikash Deputy Commissioner of Customs Import Seed 4. Shri Nalin Kumar Deputy Commissioner of Customs Group V 5. Shri Prashant Kumar Jha Deputy Commissioner of Customs SUB and 6. Shri Abhinav Yadav Assistant Commissioner of Customs Import Shed 2. A meeting of the Committee was held on 06.0-.2014 and after deliberation the matter the Committee has decided that as per Rule 2-a of the interpretative Rules to the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act 1975 there are five major components/ assemblies such as transmission motor axle chasis and controlle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interpretation of first schedule of Customs Tariff. Submitted without prejudice." 20. The petitioner does not dispute that in view of the aforesaid interpretation, the components imported by it are required to bear the same duty as applicable to an E-Rickshaw. The legal fiction as enacted under Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules - that is treating incomplete and unfinished articles as complete articles - is only for the purposes of interpretation of the First Schedule of the Custom Tariff Act, 1975. This legal fiction cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it was enacted. Plainly, by applying the legal fiction of Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules, the components would not, by fiction, become complete motor vehicles for other purposes. The legal fiction enacted for purposes of interpreting the duties under the Custom Tariff Act, 1975 cannot be extended to treat the essential parts of a motor vehicle as a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads. 21. It is well settled that legal fictions created by a statute cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which they are so created. In Bengal Immunity Co. v. State of Bihar: 1955 (2) SCR 603, P.N. Bhagwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules. The authorities relied upon the Explanatory Note to HSN in Chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 which is set out below:- "An incomplete or unfinished vehicle is classified as the corresponding complete or finished vehicle provided it has the essential character of the latter [see Interpretative Rule 2(a)] as for example: (A) A motor vehicle, not yet fitted with the wheels or tyres and battery. (B) A motor vehicle not equipped with its engine or with its interior fittings. (C) A bicycle without saddle and tyres. This Chapter also covers parts and accessories which are identifiable as being suitable for use solely or principally with the vehicles included therein, subject to the provisions of the Notes to Section XVII (see the General Explanatory Note to the Section)." (Emphasis supplied by Ld. S.D.R.)." 24. At the material time, the complete scooters were also placed in negative list of the ITC Policy and on the basis of the said interpretation the Custom Authorities also contended that the said import was prohibited and, accordingly, the goods in question were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. While the Tribunal accepted that the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
