Per G.N. Srinivasan :

This is an appeal by the Department against the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay made on 2.6.1995, in Order-in-Appeal No. 354/93/BCH allowing the respondent's appeal holding that the 'Camphor' is entitled to be imported under OGL.

2 The respondents filed two Bills of Entry in Nhava Sheva Customs House on 30th May 1994 and 2nd June 1994 for import of 'Camphor' claiming that they could be imported under OGL. It is the case of the department that clarification issued by the DGFT in September, 1993 Camphor' cannot be imported under OGL. The matter was heard by the adjudicating authority who by its order dated 8.7.1994 disagreed with the respondent. He tried to follow the judgment of the Southern Regional Bench of the Tribunal, against which the appeal was reheard before the Collector (Appeals), Mumbai. Collector (Appeals) Mumbai in the impugned order had held inter alia that the respondents were manufacturers of synthetic resin and they were using 'camphor' as plasticizer in their factory. He had also held that in the past the respondents had been clearing the 'camphor' under OGL and the usual packing is in 25 Kgs cartons and not in consumer packs of 100 and 200 gms. He had also held that if 'camphor' is imported in consumer packs of 100 gms and 200 gms and 500 gms for 'poojas' it could have been considered as directly satisfying the human needs which is the criteria for satisfying the consumer goods. He by the impugned order reversed the findings of the adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal of the respondents. Hence the present appeal.

3 Learned SDR Shri Rao, vehemently challenges the order passed by the Collector (Appeals). He invited our attention to ground No.5 as well as ground No.6 of the grounds of appeal which states that the case is similar to the case of sealing compound which find application in the household as well as industry. He also invited our attention to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in United Breweries Ltd. reported in 1994 (53) ECR 13 where the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has held that the sodium vapour lamps have to be treated as consumer goods even though it could have been imported largely by public authorities like municipal authorities. He also invited our attention to ground No.6 which states that 'camphor' is imported in bulk packing but items like 'camphor' is not sold in pre-packed retail packets alone. The findings given by the Collector (Appeals) in this regard is absolutely wrong. A shopkeeper, it is argued by the department, sells a particular quantity to a consumer after weighing the required quantity from bulk packing available with him. Therefore packing is not relevant to decide whether goods imported are consumer goods or otherwise.

4 As against this ld. counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the judgment of the SRB in the case of Sullur Tea Depot Vs. CC, Madras 1994 (3) RLT 878 (T) = 1994 (72) ELT 972. He states that the clarification given by the DGFT authorities was not known to the public. He also invited our attention to the observations of the Tribunal in paragraph 5 which states that when the item is used as a raw material for manufacture of certain other goods same cannot be considered as consumer goods. He states that when the Tribunal has held in that way, the present case has to be found in the same way holding that the goods is [sic] not a consumer goods. He also stated that department has not adduced to any evidence to show that they were not actual users.

5 Shri Rao, ld. SDR in reply would say that order passed by the Tribunal on 8.6.1994 i.e. reported in 1994 (3) RLT 878 (T) = 72 ELT 972 is not relevant because in that order the Tribunal was considering whether the goods were imported following the existing practice at the relevant time and the department was justified in confiscating the goods or not.

6 We have considered the rival submissions. Here the goods have been imported in May and June