Per Shri V.P. Gulati :

These 4 appeals involve a common issue and are, therefore, taken up together for disposal. The issue in these appeals relates to the importation of interfaces for the DOT Matrix Printers. The learned original authority has held that the interfaces were not covered by the licence, in as much as the licence covers DOT Matrix Printers and not interfaces which are a separate entity. The benefit of Notification No. 282/84, for that reason, has also been denied. The learned lower appellate authority, however, has held the goods as accessories of the DOT Matrix Printers and, therefore, allowable under the Import Licence, but has upheld the order of denial of the notification, as these are not parts of DOT Matrix Printers.

2. The learned Advocate appearing for M/s. Wipro Information Technology Ltd., has pleaded that the appellants had imported the DOT Matrix Printers along with the interfaces and a composite price for the printers and the DOT Matrix Printers and the interfaces has been charged by the supplier. He has pleaded, for technical reasons the DOT Matrix Printers and the interfaces were packed separately. He has pleaded, the DOT Matrix Printers are to be used in a particular configuration and for that purpose the interface was required. He has pleaded, the DOT Matrix Printers technically, therefore, could not have been linked to the CPU without the interfaces for use in a particular configuration. He has pleaded, the interfaces is to be fitted in the socket provided in the DOT Matrix Printers. He has pleaded that the interfaces has to be encased in the body of the DOT Matrix Printers. He has, therefore, pleaded, the denial both on the licence angle and exemption notification angle, should have been allowed and the learned lower authority has been in error in denying the benefit.

3. The learned SDR for the department, arguing in the department's appeal against the learned lower authority's finding that the licence covered the goods i.e. the interfaces, has pleaded that a perusal of the catalogue will show that interfaces is not one of the items included in the specifications for the DOT Matrix Printers and that interfaces is only an optional equipment. Referring to the catalogue, he has pleaded that under the heading interfaces in the literature the word 'optional' has been written and that would clearly go to show that it is not a part of the DOT Matrix Printers. His plea is DOT Matrix Printers is complete without the interfaces and can also function so. He has pleaded that if for a particular configuration some additional items are required, that would not make them a part of the DOT Matrix Printers. The fact that the items has to be slotted in the DOT Matrix Printers would not make any difference so long its character as an independent entity is concerned.

4. In reply, the learned Advocate has pleaded that the Printer can function either in parallel or series function and the interfaces is required for this purpose.

5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe from the catalogue that the specifications of the DOT Matrix Printers do not indicate that the interfaces is a part of the same and in the catalogue interfaces has been shown as an optional item. In the case of equipments which are sophisticated in nature how the items are considered by the manufacturer is important for the purpose of consideration of the importation thereof. When the manufacturer themselves consider it as an optional equipment, that would mean that the item as such need not be supplied with the DOT Matrix Printers as standard item of equipment and it is left to the resources of the buyer to arrange for the same. May be, the interfaces facilitates the functioning of the equipment in a particular mode, but that would not make the item which facilitates as a part of the equipment. Going by this, we are of the view that the item cannot be considered as a part of the DOT Matrix Printer.

6. The learned lower auth