1988 (5) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Tribunal ruling: Imported rolls not packing material, reduced fine granted for lack of malicious intent.

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the imported Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls, ruling that they did not qualify as packing material under ... Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls Issues Involved:1. Whether the imported goods, Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls, could be imported as packing material against the product mentioned in Group 0.1 Appendix 17 of the Import and Export Policy, April 1985 - March 1988.2. Whether the imported goods merit the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 341-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 as amended.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Import of Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls as Packing MaterialThe appellants filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of Polypropylene Adhesive Coated Jumbo Rolls, claiming they were allowed under Group 0.1 of Appendix 17 of the Import Export Policy, 1985-1988, as 'packing materials Polypropylene.' They also claimed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 341-Cus. However, the Customs Authorities did not allow the clearance, stating that the imported goods fall under Appendix 2B of the said Policy and are not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 341/76.The appellants argued that the imported goods are covered under Group 0.1 of Appendix 17, as they are Polypropylene coated with adhesive. They contended that the goods are not finished articles but semi-finished materials, which should be allowed under the policy. The appellants cited several case laws to support their argument that the goods should be considered as packing materials Polypropylene.The Customs Authorities, however, argued that the imported goods are actually self-adhesive polypropylene films/sheets and not merely Polypropylene. They stated that the goods are manufactured products and not allowed under the relevant entry of the Import Export Policy. The Additional Collector concluded that the goods are manufactured products and not covered by the relevant entry, which only allows Polypropylene in its primary forms.The Tribunal agreed with the findings of the Additional Collector, holding that the imported goods are not covered under the relevant entry of the Import Export Policy. The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to provide evidence of previous clearances of similar goods under similar licenses. Hence, the Tribunal held that the importation of the subject goods was unauthorized.Issue 2: Benefit of Exemption Notification No. 341-Cus., dated 2-8-1976The appellants argued that the Additional Collector erred in denying the benefit of Notification No. 341/76-Cus., on the grounds that the articles specified in Item Nos. 1 to 11 are finished products ready for use, and therefore, the articles under Item No. 12, which reads as 'Others,' should also be finished articles ready for use.The Tribunal considered the arguments and noted that Item No. 12 is a residuary item and there is nothing in the Notification to show that for claiming the benefit, the articles made of plastic materials must be finished articles. The Tribunal found the reasoning of the Additional Collector unconvincing and held that the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification. Consequently, the imported goods are liable to be assessed after giving the benefit of Notification No. 341/76-Cus., dated 2-8-1976 as amended.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the imported goods but reduced the amount of redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- considering there was no malafide intention on the part of the appellants. The penalty amount of Rs. 1000/- imposed upon the appellant was also confirmed. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.