1991 (1) TMI 311 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows appeal on defective goods import, orders redemption & remission under Customs Act

AEROLEX HOSE (P) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The appeal was allowed as the Tribunal found that the appellant did not import defective goods warranting confiscation, as they sought to abandon the ... Remission of duty Issues:1. Confiscation of defective rubber hoses and redemption on payment of fine.2. Validity of the license produced for the defective goods.3. Applicability of Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 for remission of duty.4. Interpretation of the order for redemption and abandonment of goods.Analysis:1. The appeal was against an order confiscating a consignment of defective rubber hoses but allowing redemption on payment of a fine. The appellant imported rubber hoses, of which 260 meters were found to be defective. The Additional Collector ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of Rs. 3,500. The appellant requested permission to abandon the defective material, as they received free replacement for it. The Tribunal noted that the appellant only sought importation of quality goods and not defective ones. The suppliers informed them of the defect and agreed to replace the material. The Tribunal held that there was no importation of defective goods warranting confiscation, as the appellant sought to abandon the defective goods due to the free replacement received. The order for redemption and abandonment of goods was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.2. The adjudication proceedings were initiated on the ground that the defective rubber hoses required a valid license, which the appellant's license did not cover. The Additional Collector held that the defective goods were covered by a specific entry in the Customs Act, requiring a valid license. However, the Tribunal found that since the appellant sought to abandon the defective goods and received free replacement, there was no need for a valid license for the defective goods. The request for remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, should have been accepted in this case.3. Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, allows for remission of duty in certain circumstances. The Tribunal held that the appellant's request to abandon the defective goods for which they received free replacement should have been accepted for remission of duty under this section. The Tribunal found that taking action under the Customs Act for the importation of defective goods was not warranted in this case, as the appellant did not seek to clear the defective goods for home consumption.4. The Additional Collector's order allowing redemption of the goods and subsequent abandonment by the appellant was deemed unsustainable by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that since the appellant desired to abandon the goods and received free replacement, the question of permitting redemption did not arise. The order's indication that the goods may be abandoned after redemption was considered unnecessary, as the appellant was not interested in clearing the goods. The Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, finding that the order for redemption and abandonment of the goods was not sustainable in the circumstances of the case.