1986 (8) TMI 81 - HC - Customs

Court overturns brandy concentrate confiscation order due to procedural violations, emphasizing incorrect classification methods and lack of evidence.

TATA EXPORTS LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA

The High Court set aside the Collector's order confiscating imported brandy concentrate, citing a violation of natural justice. Despite a subsequent ... Precedents - Classification of goods - Brandy concentrate Issues:1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act.2. Violation of principles of natural justice by Collector.3. Dismissal of revision application by Secretary to the Government of India.4. Determination of imported goods as brandy concentrate.Analysis:1. The petitioner, a registered export house, imported brandy concentrate but faced confiscation of goods under the Customs Act due to allegations of unauthorized importation of high bouquet brandy. The initial show cause notice was issued based on this premise, leading to detention and examination of the imported goods by Customs Authorities. The Collector's order confiscating the goods was set aside in appeal due to a violation of principles of natural justice.2. Subsequently, a de novo show cause notice was issued by the Collector, resulting in the confiscation of goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine. The Central Board of Excise upheld this decision on appeal, prompting the petitioner to file a revision application to the Central Government. The Secretary to the Government of India dismissed the revision application, leading to the present petition challenging the decision.3. The petitioner's counsel argued that the orders of the lower authorities were unsustainable as the imported goods were indeed brandy concentrate, supported by a previous decision in a similar case involving the petitioner. The revisional authority's disregard of the earlier decision was deemed incorrect, especially since the facts of both cases were identical, and the goods were cleared for home consumption against valid import licenses.4. The High Court found that the revisional authority's decision was flawed on multiple grounds. Despite discrepancies in the recorded strength of the imported goods, the authorities confirmed that they were over-proof brandy with solid matter exceeding the prescribed limit for brandy. The goods were intended for blending with indigenous alcohol by another company, further supporting the classification as brandy concentrate. The revisional authority's reliance on the Brussel's Tariff Nomenclature for classification was deemed erroneous, and the rejection of the supplier's certificate without proper consideration was criticized. The Court concluded that the imported goods were indeed brandy concentrate, and the decision to confiscate them was unsustainable.5. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioner, discharging the bond furnished earlier. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.