1987 (2) TMI 318 - AT - Customs

Customs Classification Decision: Majority upholds Collector, dissent seeks more evidence. Re-assessment ordered, Export Declarations excluded.

The majority decision upheld the Collector's findings on the classification and valuation of the goods but allowed for redemption of the goods on a fine ... Import - Lining material Issues Involved:1. Falsification of dates in the Bills of Lading.2. Classification of the imported goods as lining material or man-made fabrics.3. Validity of the import licenses.4. Misdeclaration of the value of the imported goods.5. Penalty and confiscation of goods.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Falsification of Dates in the Bills of Lading:The Collector found that the appellants could not be held personally responsible for the falsification of the dates in the Bills of Lading, although they were beneficiaries of such manipulation. The appellants indicated possession of other valid licenses, thus mitigating the impact of this issue. Therefore, this issue was deemed minor and did not significantly affect the outcome.2. Classification of the Imported Goods:The primary contention was whether the imported goods were lining materials or man-made fabrics, which were banned for import. The appellants argued that the goods were 100% polyester lining material, fitting the description in Appendix 17 of the ITC Policy AM 1982-83. They cited definitions from Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles and Mercury Dictionary of Textile Terms, and provided expert opinions and certificates from tailoring establishments. However, the Collector found that the materials were not lining materials but man-made fabrics, based on texture, finish, width, and thickness. The Collector's findings were supported by personal inspection and laboratory tests, concluding that the goods did not conform to the description of lining materials and were thus banned under Appendix 4 of the Import Policy.3. Validity of the Import Licenses:The Collector held that the import licenses produced by the appellants, issued under Appendix 17, were not valid to cover the imported goods as they were man-made fabrics. The amendment specifying the width of lining materials was considered clarificatory and thus applicable retrospectively. Consequently, the import was deemed unauthorized.4. Misdeclaration of the Value of the Imported Goods:The Collector relied on Export Declarations filed before Japanese Customs, which showed higher values than those declared by the appellants. The appellants argued that these declarations were not reliable as they were photocopies and not signed by relevant authorities. The Collector, however, accepted the Export Declarations as valid evidence under Section 14(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, determining that the declared value was under-invoiced. The appellants' evidence, including affidavits and previous import instances, was not accepted as it did not conclusively prove the declared value.5. Penalty and Confiscation of Goods:The Collector ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed penalties on the appellants, considering the goods were banned and undervalued. However, the tribunal found that the appellants were not personally involved in the falsification of the Bills of Lading and that the goods had been under confiscation for nearly three years. Therefore, it allowed the goods to be redeemed on a fine equivalent to 100% of the assessed value and reduced the penalties as follows:- M/s. East Punjab Traders: From Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs.- M/s. Janata Traders: From Rs. 6 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs.- M/s. P.C. Jain and Co.: From Rs. 1.5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh.Separate Judgment by M. Gouri Shankar Murthy:M. Gouri Shankar Murthy dissented, arguing that the Revenue did not prove beyond doubt that:- The imported goods were not lining materials.- The import licenses were invalid.- The appellants falsified the description, invoice values, or shipment dates.- There was any misdeclaration warranting confiscation or penalties.He emphasized that the burden of proof lay heavily on the Revenue, which failed to discharge it. He also questioned the authenticity and probative value of the Export Declarations and argued that the amendments specifying the width of lining materials could not be applied retrospectively. Consequently, he held that the goods were indeed lining materials and the declared value was correct. He allowed the appeals, set aside the Collector's order, and directed re-assessment of the goods excluding the disputed Export Declarations.Conclusion:The majority decision upheld the Collector's findings on the classification and valuation of the goods but allowed for redemption of the goods on a fine and reduced penalties. The dissenting opinion argued for the appellants, finding the evidence insufficient to support the Collector's conclusions. The final decision directed re-assessment of the goods, excluding the disputed Export Declarations.