Ori. HC: ‘Online RTI Portal’ Launched by Orissa High Court  ||  Del HC: In Delhi, Giving Monthly Pension of Rs.3000 to Building & Construction Workers is Very Small  ||  Del HC: Oil Manufac. Restrained from Using ‘Vigoura’ Mark, in Trademark Infringement Case by Pfizer  ||  SC: HC’s Decision Allowing Amendment of Cheque Date Mentioned in Complaint, Set Aside  ||  Del. HC: If Accused Discharged/Acquitted under PMLA, Properties Attached Shall be Released  ||  Bom. HC: For Issuing Reopening Notice After Three Years, Sanctioning Authority has to be PCCIT  ||  Del. HC: Delhi Govt. to Frame Policy for Compensation to Victims of Chinese Manjha  ||  Del HC: Stay on Delhi Govt’s Circular Asking Private Unaided Schools to Get Sanction Before Fee Hike  ||  SC: Stamp Duty Can be Imposed by State on Insurance Policies Executed Within State  ||  SC: IO to Make Clear & Complete Entries in Chargesheet, Role Played by Each Accused to be Mentioned    

Ratnamani Metal And Tubes Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Mundra - (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) (23 Sep 2022)

Any plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required for manufacture or production, either directly or indirectly, of goods would fall within the scope of capital goods

MANU/CS/0245/2022

Customs

The Appellant purchased a "Complete Used Stainless Steel Tube Manufacturing Plant" including parts, spares, accessories, tools & tackles and office related furniture/equipment, at a total purchase price of 31,00,000 Euros from SN Aussenhandel E.K. Germany in terms of purchase agreement and sought clearance of the said goods vide Bill of Entry. The proper officer of customs, in respect of all other parts of second-hand tube manufacturing plant, permitted clearance.

However, in respect of office furniture/equipment, he denied clearance on the premise that, the said item cannot be construed as "capital goods" and accordingly the same falls under Sr. II of para. 2.31 of Foreign Trade Policy - 2015-2020 whereunder the second-hand goods that are not capital goods are restricted and is importable only against authorization.

However, the Additional Commissioner of Customs, vide his Order ordered confiscation of the said goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000.00 and further imposed penalty of Rs. 4,00,00.00 on the Appellant holding that the second hand office furniture/equipment are not "capital goods" as the same are not required for manufacture or production either directly or indirectly, therefore not covered under definition of capital goods.

It is clear from the definition of capital goods that, any plant, machinery, equipment or accessories required for manufacture or production, either directly or indirectly, of goods would fall within the scope of capital goods. The scope of word "for manufacture" and "indirectly" appearing in the definition of capital goods under the policy is wide and thus use of such goods having indirect nexus with the manufacture or production of goods also qualify as capital goods.

The office furniture, tools etc which are used in relation to the manufacturing plant/services answers "user test" and in view of the wide and inclusive definition of "capital goods" under the Foreign Trade Policy; such goods qualify as "capital goods".

Since the subject goods qualify as capital goods in terms of para. 2.31 Sr. No. I (c) of the Policy; the import was in accordance with the policy. In the circumstances, the said goods cannot be held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Consequently, neither redemption fine under section 125 of the Act was warranted nor penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Act was required to be imposed, hence the same cannot be sustained. The impugned order is not set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags :   CONFISCATION  PENALTY  LEGALITY

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved