1. This appeal arises out of order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 29.1.1985. The short facts of the case are that the appellants imported printed circuit boards against an additional licence valid for import of goods falling in Appendix-5 and Appendix-7 of AM 84 Policy. The goods on examination were found to be populated/loaded printed circuit boards. The lower authority held that these were covered by Entry No.564 and 576 of Appendix-3A of the said policy and also that the subject goods were covered by Entry No. 100 of Appendix-2B. He held that the goods were not covered by the Import Licence. He confiscated the goods, but permitted their redemption on a fine of Rs. 90,000/-. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order. Hence this appeal, 2. Shri Inder Kumar Panjwani, Proprietor appearing for the appellants drew our attention to Entry No. 564 of Appendix 3A and claimed that it had no relevance to the impugned goods. Referring to Entry No. 564 of the said Appendix, he claimed the goods imported by him were sub-assembly and were permissible imports. He denied that the goods imported were hit by Entry No. 576 of Appendix 3A. He claimed that the licence produced by him was sufficient to cover the importation and therefore, the order leading to confiscating was wrong.
3. He claimed that they had claimed the benefit of Notfn. No. 232/83 for clearance of the goods which had not been granted. Referring to the quantum of fine, he claimed that they were not sellers of the item but were actual manufacturers. Before the original authorities, they had produced documents and returns filed by them before the Central Excise authorities. In view of the fact that they were actual manufacturers, relief was claimed.
4. Shri M. Ali, Id. DR appearing for the Revenue distinguished between the imported goods and plain printed circuit boards. He claimed that the printed circuit boards were converted into populated boards by adding certain components like transformers, electric compressors etc.
After such additions the board is no longer a printed circuit board. He further claimed that the populated circuit board could not be termed as sub-assembly unless it was connected or fitted with other plastic components or other mechanical components 'Arguing on the adequacy of the licence, he stated that the licence covered goods listed under Appendices 5 and 7 only and was not valid for importation for items listed under Appendix 3A. He ale: argued that the licence was not transferable. Ld. DR claimed that the goods were covered by Appendix 2B. Ld. DR drew attention to Note No. 4 in Chapter 85 and claimed that the term "printed circuits" did not cover circuits combined with elements other than those obtained from the printing process. He stated that the present goods therefore, are not covered under the benefit of Notfn. No. 232-Customs dated 18.8.1993 as the Entry No. 2 in the Table annexed with the said notification read as "printed circuits and printed circuit boards".
5. We have carefully gone through the facts before us and the arguments made. There is no doubt that the goods imported were populated printed circuit boards and not plain printed circuit boards. This is stated in the first paragraph of the order-in-original and has not been effectively rebutted by the appellants. The appellants are seeking coverage of the goods under entries in Appendix 3A. The relevant entries are general in terms and cover sub-assemblies. Ld. DR has distinguished between populated circuit boards and sub-assemblies and has shown that entries in Appendix 3A would not cover the goods imported. On the other hand, the description under Entry at S.No. 100 in Appendix 2B is very specific, that is, populated/loaded/printed circuit boards. The Entry which has a specific description is to be preferred over a general entry. On perusal of the Entry, it is clear that at the material time, the import of the subject goods was prohibited. The licence itself was not able to cover goods falling under Appendices other than 5 and 7, not was the licence transferable.
It is, therefore, clear that at the relevant time, the subject licence was not sufficient to cover the importation of the goods and therefore the confiscation thereof wet correctly adjudged.
6. Coming to the quantum of fine, we observe that the importers are not sellers but are actual manufacturers. Even before the original authorities, they had produced evidence such as the approval of valuation of the goods manufactured by them by the excise authorities.
On this ground, there is sufficient justification for reducing the quantum of fine imposed by the lower authority.
7. We therefore, reduce the fine from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 40,000/-. On the applicability of the Notfn. No. 232/83, we observe that the subject notification covers goods falling under Heading 85.15/27 as it then existed. By virtue of Note 4 to Chapter 85 Populated Circuit Boards were excluded from the coverage of this Tariff Item. The plea for the benefit of the notification cannot be entertained.
Subject to the modification in the quantum of fine, this appeal is otherwise rejected.