ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has confiscated 236 pieces of industrial sewing machine heads, old and used, with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 3.50 lakhs. He has imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 75,000/- 011 the importer. The said order has been passed on the ground that as per the provisions of para 5.4 of the Hand Book of Procedure, second hand capital goods can be imported freely by actual user only. Inasmuch the appellant is a trader, the importation without a licence was not allowed.
2. On matter being called, nobody has appeared on behalf of the appellants. I also find that on the last occasion also, appearance was not caused by the appellants. Accordingly, I have heard Shri T.K. Kar, Id. SDR and Shri A.K. Mondal, Id. JDR for the Revenue.
3. The appellant in their memo of appeal has placed reliance on the earlier order of the Tribunal being Order No. A-900-Kol/2001 dated 17.9.2001 wherein, in identical facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner confiscating the old and used industrial sewing machines was set aside. Para 5 of the said order reads as under:
5. From the above paragraph it is seen that the Commissioner has only gone by the advice of the DGFT. However, it is seen that there is no dispute that para 5.4 of the Handbook of Procedure allows import of the capital goods subject to the condition that the same shall not be disposed of, transferred or sold within a period of two year from the date of import except with the prior permission of the DGFT. There is no condition in the said para that the import can only be made by actual users. The Commissioner has also admitted the above fact, but has introduced the said condition by observing that the same is implied. It is well settled principle of interpretation of fiscal statutes that when the language is clear and unambiguous, the intention of the legislature becomes irrelevant and no foreign words can be introduced based upon such intention. Inasmuch as the policy nowhere specifies that such capital goods can only be imported by actual users, introduction of such a condition in the policy would not be proper. It is further seen that the capital goods so imported can be disposed of or sold with the permission of the DGFT. This also negates the stand of the Revenue that the intention of the policy is to allow imports to actual users and not to traders. On the contrary, it shows that traders, after importation can approach DGFT for sale or disposal of the goods. As such I find that terms of the policy being very clear there is no doubt about the same. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
4. Inasmuch as the issue is already covered in favour of the appellants by the above referred order of the Tribunal, I set aside the impugned order and allow both the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.