2001(12)LCX0095

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. IV, NEW DELHI

Justice K.K. Usha, President and Shri C.N.B. Nair, Member (T)

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Versus

MARUTI UDYOG LTD.

Final Order Nos.1-2/2002-D, dated 10-12-2001 in Appeal Nos. C/471 & 450/2001-D

CASE CITED

Commissioner v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. — 2001(08)LCX0075 Eq 2001 (133) ELT 0009 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 3]

Advocated By :   Ms. Ananya Ray, SDR, for the Appellant.

S/Shri K. Kumar, Advocate and N.C. Sogani, Consultant, for the Respondent.

[Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - These appeals arise out of Order-in-Appeal No. HKS(614)CARGO/2001, dated 19-7-2001 at the instance of the Revenue and assessee respectively. The appellants in C/450/2001 imported documents termed as “JD Power Asia Pacific 2000 QS Maruti Dealer CSI Study” valued at Rs. 882488/- and filed Bill of Entry dated 22-2-2001 seeking its clearance under CTH 4901.99 and claimed benefit of Notification No. 16/2000 (Sl. No. 129). The adjudicating authority held that documents imported are not qualified to be treated as printed books or printed manuals and accordingly not eligible for benefit of Notification 16/2000. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the offence of mis-declaration on the part of the appellants and allowed the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3 Lakhs. The penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed on them under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962.

2. On appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the finding of the adjudicating authority that the goods imported does not fall under the category of printed books and printed manuals meriting exemption under Notification No. 16/2000. It was found that the document was a compilation of statistics based upon information gathered by an agency pursuant to query from customers and it is submitted in the form of a report for use by interested parties. On going through the contract papers and introduction of the compilation, it is found that the same is available to the subscribers on payment of certain fees. The study report is compiled by an agency for commercial consideration and has commercial value. It was on the basis of the above observations the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the finding of the adjudicating authority that the goods under import are documents classifiable under CTH 4901.99. But at the same time the Commissioner (Appeals) took the view as regards the allegation of mis-declaration on the part of appellants that the appellants have correctly described the goods under import as “JD Power Asia Pacific 2000 QS Maruti Dealer CSI Study” and supplied all the relevant information to the adjudicating authority. He, therefore, took the view that the goods are not liable to be confiscated. The redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellants were, therefore, set aside. Being aggrieved by this part of the order, Revenue has filed Appeal No. C/471/2001.

3. In the light of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi v. Parasrampuria Synthetics Ltd. [2001 (133) ELT 9] we find that the authorities have come to the correct conclusion that the goods under import are not books. In the above case, the question which came up for consideration was whether “printed drawings, designs and plans in 97 volumes under the Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement” for selling up a plant are “printed books” imported by the respondents. The documents though loosely kept in a binder are known as Zimmer Documentation as regards the Fisher-Rosemount Systems. It was a technology transfer agreement which stands documented in a folder. According to the Supreme Court merely by reason of the factum of certain writings on various sheets of papers one cannot ascribe the documentation to be a ‘book’. The word ‘book’ has not been defined in the Act but the ‘book’ in common acceptation is a literary composition from which one may extend or advance his or her knowledge and learning. Going by the above concept of the ‘book’, it was found that documents imported could not be treated as book. We find that the dictum laid down in the above decision squarely applies in the facts of the present case. We, therefore, confirm the finding in the impugned order that the goods under import are documents classifiable under CTH 4901.99.

4. As regards the appeal by the Revenue, we find no merit. The facts in the present case clearly show that there is no mis-declaration on the part of the appellant. Once all the required details of the goods imported are given the party cannot be held guilty of mis-declaration only for the reason they put forward an untenable claim for exemption from duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the correct conclusion on this point and it was totally unnecessary on the part of the Revenue to have filed this appeal.

5. In the light of the above, we dismiss both the appeals.

Equivalent 2002 (141) ELT 392 (Tri. - Del.)