1995 (7) TMI 428 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 20 of the Customs Act for re-importation of goods.
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a).
3. Comparison of facts between different cases to establish eligibility for exemption under Section 20.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Section 20 of the Customs Act for re-importation of goods
The case involved M/s. Indian Crafts seeking to re-import silk ladies skirts under Section 20 of the Customs Act. The goods were found not re-imported in their original export packing, but their identity was established based on description and quantity declared. The appellant argued for exemption under Section 20 as they surrendered benefits of advance license and did not claim drawback. The lower authority held that goods exported under Central Excise bond are liable for duty and subject to restrictions. The lower authority confiscated the goods but allowed redemption on payment of a fine and duty. The appellate authority found that the goods were eligible for Section 20 benefits as the identity was established, setting aside the lower authority's decision.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and penalty under Section 112(a)
The lower authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and imposed a fine and penalty under Section 112(a). However, the appellate authority disagreed with this decision, stating that the lower authority's order was based on a misconception and indifference to facts. The appellate authority found the impugned order unwarranted, whimsical, and arbitrary, leading to great hardship for the appellant. The appellate authority set aside the impugned order and directed full relief from penal actions for the appellant.

Issue 3: Comparison of facts between different cases
The appellant presented a comparative chart of facts between M/s. Ballarpur Industries and M/s. Indian Crafts to establish differences in their cases. The appellant argued that they fully discharged export obligations before obtaining an advance license, making it transferable without executing any export bond. The appellant highlighted that the facts and circumstances of the two cases were entirely different, emphasizing that the impugned order was based on a misconception of facts. The appellate authority agreed with the appellant's arguments, finding that the appellant was entitled to exemption under Section 20 and that the impugned order was unjustified.

In conclusion, the appellate authority allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower authority's decision, and directed full relief for the appellant from all penal actions. The appellate authority emphasized the misconception in the lower authority's decision and the unwarranted nature of the impugned order, providing clarity on the interpretation of Section 20 for re-importation of goods.