Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Abacus Computers Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Abacus Computers Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 31, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29983

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abacus Computers Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Acc

Legal References

Reported In
(2003)(162)ELT227Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....consumer electronic equipment as its use was not limited to professional or industrial application only and as per para 41(2) of the policy, import of computers/computer based systems and peripherals other than those allowed under ogl require specific import licence for their clearance and prior clearance of the department of electronics was also required. show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the personal computers imported without cover of valid itc licence and proposing imposition of penalty. the collector of customs ordered confiscation with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of rs. 4 lakhs and imposed penalty of rs. 2 lakhs on the importers under section 112(a) of the customs act. hence this appeal.2. none appears for the appellants in spite of notice. hence i heard the ld. departmental representative shri uma shankar and perused the records. the appellants have not put any material on record as to why the goods cannot be treated as consumer goods, while on the other hand, the adjudicating authority has given a clear finding that the goods can directly satisfy human needs and therefore, fall within the description of consumer goods. since the goods are consumer goods they are not covered under ogl and required a specific import licence. therefore, the licence produced by the importers has rightly been held not to be valid for the coverage of the import. since the import is unauthorised, confiscation is sustainable as well as the penalty. i, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of 18 pcs. of personal computers and sought clearance thereof under Apendix 3A, Sr. No. 732 of the AM 1990-93 Policy and submitted REP licence with flexibility provision of para 192 of the same Policy. Sr. No. 732 of Appendix 3A covers - ''Electronic Equipments/Systems excluding all consumer electronic equipment/systems." The department was of the view that personal computers were falling within the category of consumer electronic equipment as its use was not limited to professional or industrial application only and as per para 41(2) of the Policy, import of Computers/Computer based systems and peripherals other than those allowed under OGL require specific import licence for their clearance and prior clearance of the Department of Electronics was also required. Show cause notice was issued proposing confiscation of the personal computers imported without cover of valid ITC licence and proposing imposition of penalty. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation with option to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 4 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Hence this appeal.

2. None appears for the appellants in spite of notice. Hence I heard the ld. Departmental Representative Shri Uma Shankar and perused the records. The appellants have not put any material on record as to why the goods cannot be treated as consumer goods, while on the other hand, the Adjudicating Authority has given a clear finding that the goods can directly satisfy human needs and therefore, fall within the description of consumer goods. Since the goods are consumer goods they are not covered under OGL and required a specific import licence. Therefore, the licence produced by the importers has rightly been held not to be valid for the coverage of the import. Since the import is unauthorised, confiscation is sustainable as well as the penalty. I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial