2003 (12) TMI 575 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of concession on the ground of GSM exceeding the prescribed limit.
2. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 23/98 as "light weight coated paper" denied due to GSM not matching the prescribed limit.
3. Discrepancy in GSM test results between Customs House Laboratory and Central Revenue Control Laboratory.
4. Appellant's submission for tolerance provision in GSM consideration.
5. Contention regarding adherence to specific criterion in exemption notification.
6. Interpretation of the exemption notification criteria in light of GSM variation and tolerance provision.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported "Glazed Newsprint" seeking clearance at an exempted duty rate under Notification No. 23/98. The concession was denied as the GSM of the paper exceeded the prescribed limit of 70 GSM.

2. The appellant argued that even if the paper is not classified as newsprint, it should be eligible as "light weight coated paper" under the same notification. However, this benefit was also denied due to the consignment not meeting the prescribed GSM limit of 70G/m2.

3. Discrepancies arose in GSM test results between the Customs House Laboratory and Central Revenue Control Laboratory, with variations noted in the GSM measurements of the imported goods.

4. The appellant contended that tolerance should be considered in GSM determination due to the hygroscopic nature of the paper, supplier's indicated tolerance of +/- 60 GSM, and the recognized tolerance provision in the Export & Import Policy of +/- 10% for paper GSM.

5. The Respondent argued for strict adherence to the specific criterion in the exemption notification when subjecting goods to duty.

6. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, acknowledging the discrepancy in GSM measurements, the hygroscopic property of the paper, and the tolerance provision in the Export & Import Policy. It was deemed necessary to allow for variation in GSM and grant concessional assessment to the consignment under import, as the variation fell below the 10% tolerance provided in the policy and the consignment met other criteria in the entry. The judgment favored the appellant, emphasizing the need to interpret statutes to serve their intended purpose and avoid unintended consequences.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the judgment, highlighting the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellant.