TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (5) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of SKO (Superior Kerosene Oil) at Mangalore and Cochin. On the basis of intelligence, Directorate of Intelligence, Revenue drew the samples from all the tanks of the vessels and sent the same for test to M/s. Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. A certificate of origin issued by M/s. Oman Refinery Company indicated the cargo as SKO. Actually there was over-writing on the earlier description as JET A-1/D.P.K. A part of the cargo in this vessel was received from another tanker MT WADBANNAQA at Fujairah. The master of that vessel referred the cargo as JET A-1. The test results from M/s. MRPL revealed that the sample meets a requirement of ATF (Aviation Turbine Fuel) except for electrical conductivity. Since, ATF can be imported only thro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th the parcels. This entire quantity of SKO in two parcels was supposed to be discharged partly at Mangalore and partly at Cochin. (ii) For the first parcel The Bahrain Petroleum Company issued a certificate of origin. As regards the second parcel, in the certificate of origin, instead of SKO the description was ATF. This was an inadvertent mistake. Later, The Oman Refinery Company issued corrected certificate of origin describing the product name as SKO together with a written clarification stating that due to oversight, the first certificate of origin contained a mistake and confirmed that the product loaded is SKO only. (iii) The appellants had also furnished certificate of quality/test certificate from Bahrain Petr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....made by M/s. MRPL and also a report dated 8-9-2003. This is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. (xii) The samples tested had not conclusively proved that they are not SKO. (xiii) Even the test report of M/s. MRPL has not commented upon the test report issued by Oman Refinery who are the manufacturers of the product. In view of the difference of opinion between the two certificates, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt inasmuch as the goods have been allowed to be re-exported. The Apex Court in the case of M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [(1999 (113) E.L.T. 776 (S.C.)] has held that from the re-export of the goods ordered, no redemption fine is to be imposed. (xiv) The certificate o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned JDR reiterated the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. The Commissioner has held that the cargo imported is ATF on the basis of the test report of M/s. MRPL. Once the item is held as ATF, the other consequences follow as import of ATF is allowed only through Indian Oil Corporation. In this view of the matter, he has held that the impugned goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Further he has held that the importers are liable for penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In para-10 of the adjudication order, the Commissioner has justified his decision to allow the owner of the goods to re-export the same in the interes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he light of the requirement in ISI which states that the lot shall be declared as conforming to the requirement of this standard and if all the test results on the composite samples meet the relevant standard requirement." From the above, it is clear that all the requirements should be met for coming to the conclusion that the given sample is ATF. Since the electrical conductivity has not been tested by M/s. MRPL a doubt still lingers. We have also gone through the contract entered by the appellants with the foreign supplier. It is clearly stated that the product is superior kerosene oil. The other appellants who are the buyers of the impugned product from the main appellant have also contracted only for the purchase of SKF. In the certi....