2006 (12) TMI 31 - AT - Customs

Demand Revenue alleged that appellant wrongly declared the imported item Art Paper as Cardboard in order to avail the benefit of advance licence After considering the fact the respective authority rejected the allegation

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as "Cardboard" instead of "Art Paper."
2. Undervaluation of the imported goods.
3. Applicability of DGFT clarification on "white cardboard."
4. Alleged clandestine removal of goods covered by a specific Bill of Entry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The primary dispute revolves around whether the imported goods were correctly declared as "Cardboard" or if they were actually "Art Paper." The Commissioner of Customs, after examining various test reports and definitions from technical literature, concluded that the goods were indeed "Cardboard." The test reports did not indicate the presence of China Clay/Kaolin, a requisite constituent of Art Paper. The Commissioner relied on definitions from several dictionaries and technical sources, stating that the distinction between "paper" and "cardboard" is primarily based on the material's characteristics and not merely its thickness or coating. The Tribunal agreed with this detailed examination and found no infirmity in the Commissioner's view that the goods were correctly described as "Cardboard."

2. Undervaluation of the Imported Goods:
The Revenue proposed to enhance the value of the goods from US$ 1150 PMT CIF to US$ 3000 PMT CIF, alleging undervaluation. The Commissioner noted that the Revenue's stance was contradictory, as they were simultaneously claiming the goods were not "Cardboard" while using the value of previous imports of "Cardboard" to justify the enhancement. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's finding that the earlier consignments were not contemporaneous with the present consignment due to differences in description, composition, and characteristics. The Tribunal also emphasized that the manufacturer's invoice, which was not proven to be manipulated, should be accepted as evidence of the correct value.

3. Applicability of DGFT Clarification:
The Revenue argued that a DGFT clarification dated 13-6-1997, which stated that "white cardboard" should not be cleared against licenses for "Cardboard other than ivory board," should apply. The Commissioner and the Tribunal found that this clarification was not applicable to the present imports because the advance licenses were issued and transferred before the clarification was issued. The Tribunal agreed that as long as the licenses covered the goods in question, the benefit could not be denied based on a subsequent clarification.

4. Alleged Clandestine Removal of Goods:
In one appeal, the Revenue alleged clandestine removal of 140.395 MTs of goods covered by a specific Bill of Entry. The respondents argued that the goods found in the docks were not related to the said Bill of Entry and provided evidence, including statements from the CHA and records from the Kandla Port Trust, to show that the goods covered by the Bill of Entry had not been cleared. The Tribunal noted that there was no substantial evidence of clandestine removal, such as delivery records, transport documents, or sales receipts. The Tribunal found the respondents' explanation plausible and rejected the Revenue's allegations.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the Commissioner's orders that the goods were correctly described as "Cardboard," were not undervalued, and were covered by valid advance licenses. The Tribunal also found no merit in the allegations of clandestine removal.