9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods by Customs authorities. 2. Allegation of mis-declaration of goods by the appellants. 3. Discrepancy in test reports from I.I.T., Mumbai. 4. Interpretation of the advance license terms for importing rough marble stone. 5. Quantity discrepancy in the declared goods. Analysis: 1. The appellants appealed against the Adjudication Order where the Commissioner of Customs confiscated the imported goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty. The goods were rough random slab marble imported against an Advance License permitting rough random block/slabs of natural marble. Customs authorities initially found the goods in line with the declaration but later issued a show cause notice based on conflicting test reports from I.I.T., Mumbai, leading to the confiscation of goods. 2. The appellants argued that they imported rough marble slabs, supported by the initial I.I.T. report stating the goods were non-glazed and non-smooth, not polished marble. Subsequent reports from I.I.T. contradicted each other, one terming the goods as partially transformed limestone. The appellants contended that the confiscation was unjustified due to the contradictory reports and the uneven shape of the marble slabs affecting the declared quantity. 3. The Revenue's position was that the imported goods did not match the description of rough marble slabs under the advance license, alleging mis-declaration by the appellants, justifying the confiscation. However, the Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the I.I.T. reports, where the initial report did not classify the goods as polished marble, and the subsequent report clarified the material as partially transformed limestone, not polished marble. 4. The Tribunal observed that the consignment of rough marble imported in 1994 was still with Customs authorities, confiscated on the basis that they were polished marble slabs, contrary to the appellants' declaration of rough marble. The case hinged on the interpretation of the advance license terms regarding the nature of the imported goods, which the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants due to the inconclusive nature of the test reports. 5. Regarding the quantity discrepancy, the Tribunal found the excess quantity insignificant compared to the total import, especially considering the uneven shape of the marble slabs. The Tribunal concluded that the confiscation was not justified, setting aside the impugned Order and allowing the appeal of the appellants based on the inconsistencies in the test reports and the negligible quantity discrepancy.
|
