9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the importations under the Import Control Regulations and contravention of clause 3 of the Import Control Order, 1955. 2. Liability for Customs Duty on the goods imported. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of the Importations under the Import Control Regulations and Contravention of Clause 3 of the Import Control Order, 1955 1. Background: The Board reviewed the importation of "woollen rags" which were allowed as raw material for manufacturing "shoddy yarn" until 1967, after which the item was canalised through the State Trading Corporation (STC). Licenses for importing woollen rags were issued in STC's name, and the STC had control over the nature, quality, and price of the imported goods. 2. Customs Department's Understanding: The Customs Department defined "woollen rags" as worn-out, soiled, or torn articles beyond cleaning or repair, and if new, as cuttings or samples of new fabrics. In the consignments under consideration, the goods were described as "old woollen rags unserviceable and mutilated" but were found to contain a high percentage of serviceable garments and non-wool fibers, leading to their confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Appellants' Defense: The appellants relied on the Bombay High Court judgment in the Nagesh Hosiery Mills case, which quashed the confiscation of woollen rags. The Court held that "woollen rags" should be construed in the ordinary trade sense, not in a technical or scientific sense, and that the term could include items with some percentage of wool or even synthetic wool. 4. Court's Observations: The Court emphasized that the term "woollen rags" must be given its ordinary trade meaning and that if the Union Government desired any restriction, an express definition should have been provided. The Court also noted that the STC's global tenders included non-woollen items under the heading "woollen rags". 5. Board's Conclusion: The Board agreed with the Court's view and held that the imports under consideration were valid as they were made against STC's global tenders or indents approved by STC at a time when there was no statutory definition of "woollen rags". The Board set aside the orders of absolute confiscation but directed that the goods be mutilated to render them unserviceable before release. Issue 2: Liability for Customs Duty on the Goods Imported 1. Customs Duty: The Board noted that the same principles applied to the liability for Customs Duty as those applied to the Import Control aspect. If the goods were to be treated as "woollen rags" for Import Control purposes, they should also be treated as such for Customs Duty purposes. 2. Tariff Advice: The Board considered a Tariff Advice suggesting that materials could be regarded as "woollen rags" if their wool content was not less than 60%. However, this advice had no statutory authority, and the term "woollen rags" was not defined in the Indian Customs Tariff (ICT). The Board noted that the only relevant statutory prescription was Item 51(1) of the ICT, which considered articles containing not less than 15% wool by weight as "woollen hosiery and woollen knitted apparel". 3. Sampling Methods: The Board reviewed the varied methods of sampling adopted by the Bombay Custom House, which included visual examinations and chemical tests. The Board acknowledged that the sampling methods were inconsistent and that more uniform and ample sampling might have shown some percentage of woollen content. 4. Benefit of Doubt: Given the inconsistencies in sampling and testing, the Board decided to give the appellants the benefit of doubt in the classification for duty purposes. The duty on the woollen rags would be governed by the exemption notification relevant at the time of importation, namely, Notification No. 59-Cus., dated 20-4-1966. 5. Sub-sections (i) and (m) of Section 111: The Board also set aside the charges relating to these sub-sections, which involved concealment of good quality garments among the rags and differences between the Bills of Entry declarations and the goods found during examination. The Board noted that the physical condition of the goods would have materially altered over time, rendering these charges irrelevant. Summary: The Board concluded that the importations of "woollen rags" were valid under the Import Control Regulations as they were made against STC's global tenders or approved indents at a time when there was no statutory definition of "woollen rags". The orders of absolute confiscation were set aside, and the goods were directed to be mutilated before release. For Customs Duty purposes, the goods were to be treated as "woollen rags" and the duty governed by the relevant exemption notification. The charges under sub-sections (i) and (m) of section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, were also set aside.
|
