1984 (10) TMI 239 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of import licences for "Silicone Emulsion 35%" and "Rhodorsil Mould Release Agent."
2. Determination of whether the goods required import licences under Serial No. 22-31/V or Serial No. 122/V (others).

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of "Silicone Emulsion 35%" under a licence with the description "Mould Release Agent" under Serial No. 22-31/V. Customs authorities contended that Silicone Emulsion fell under Serial No. 122/V (others) based on the policy book index. The Deputy Collector confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, offering an option to clear on payment of a fine. The appeal was unsuccessful.

2. The central issue was whether the goods, identified as Silicone Emulsion 35% and Rhodorsil Mould Release Agent, were appropriately covered by the import licences under Serial No. 22-31/V or required licences under Serial No. 122/V (others). The Appellate Tribunal noted that the branded product "Rhodorsil" was Silicone Emulsion, established during the hearing. The goods were confirmed as Silicone Emulsion 35% used as a mould release agent.

3. The appellants argued that the subject goods were mould release agents, citing licences issued to other parties under Serial No. 22-31/V for Silicone Emulsion. They contended that Serial No. 22-31/V was more specific than Serial No. 122/V (others), which covered unspecified goods. The Departmental Representative opposed, referencing a ban on Silicone Emulsion import under Serial No. 122/V in the April-March 1973 policy.

4. The Tribunal considered both parties' submissions and concluded that the goods were Silicone Emulsion 35% mould release agents. They rejected the department's argument based on the policy book index, stating it lacked legal force. The Tribunal found Serial No. 22-31/V to be a more specific entry for the goods, supported by the licensing authority's previous consideration of Silicone Emulsion as falling under this serial number.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the imports were valid under the licences produced by the appellants. The appeals were allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellants within three months of the order communication.