1. By an Order No. S/10-1261/79 ACU dated 10.12.79 the Additional Collector of Customs, Air Cargo Bombay ordered the confiscation of one unit of Xerox Photo Copier Model 3107 imported by the appellants and claimed clearance without a licence in terms of Appendix 10 of Import Trade Control Policy Book April, 1979 - March 1980. The Addl. Collector did not accept the plea of the appellants that the goods were covered by entry No. 5 of that Appendix relating to research and development institutions but held that the goods constituted the consumer item. In appeal, the Central Board of Excise Customs concurred with the view of the Addl. Collector that the goods do constitute consumer items. A Revision Application was filed against the order of the Board with the Government of India which stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 131-B of the Customs Act.

2. On behalf of the appellants, it was canvassed that the photo copier is not consumer goods. Referring to the Concise Oxford dictionary definition of consumer goods, it was stated that consumer goods are "things which directly satisfy human wants and desires e.g. food and clothing". It was urged that a photo copier is not one such item. It was also urged that in the case of couple of other importers, goods have been allowed to be cleared under OGL by the Custom House, - e.g. Model 3107 imported by the Registrar, M/s. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay imported by vessel No. 13432 of 14.11.78, line No. 4; an importation by M/s. Kirloskar Cummins Ltd. by vessel of rotation No. A16716 dated 21.12.79 line No. 7. A certificate issued by the Industrial Adviser in the Directorate General of Industrial Development clarifying that photo copiers were covered by Serial No. 5 of Appendix 10 was also referred to.

3. The SDR drew our attention to condition 4 Appendix 10 according to which consumer goods are not allowed import for any category of importer in terms of OGL. He urged that durable consumer goods would still be consumer goods. By way of elucidation he referred to Serial No. 664 of Appendix 3 which refers to a number of electronic items as consumer items though they are durable in nature. Expanding the theme, he urged that goods such as washing machines, cooking ranges, refrigerators, typewriters, computers and calculators could also be covered by the term consumer goods. Hence the order of the Addl. Collector as confirmed by the Board should be upheld.

4. Continuing, the SDR pointed out that the goods imported by Kirloskars , referred to on behalf of the appellants was of a different category of machines - a micro film universal printer and not a mere photo copier. Further, the clarification given by DGTD is in relation to a subsequent policy period (though it was noted that there was no difference between the policy during that period and the one under consideration).

5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. The term "consumer goods" had not been defined in the relevant policy book. Goods such as food and clothing which directly satisfy human wants pose no problem. However, when one deals with gadgets such as calculators and the like, we enter a gray area where at one end of the spectrum goods could be used directly for satisfying human wants whereas at the other end they become so sophisticated that they require technological skill or scientific knowledge for their operation or use and hence cannot really be called goods that satisfy human wants directly. In this case, we have a photo copier costing about a lakh of rupees; one which could not certainly be an item of domestic use. It is of a type that is employed in large offices or institutions of a type to which the importer belongs. Considering this aspect of the matter, we are inclined to hold that this model of photo copier could be classified as other than consumer goods. Accordingly we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.