2012 (8) TMI 660 - AT - Customs

Export of wooden furniture components - goods were nothing but sawn timber which is prohibited for export under the Foreign Trade Policy - appellant stated that the respondents had no mala fide intention to export the goods in violation of the export policy Held that - On an earlier occasion, the SIIB, had allowed a similar cargo for export and therefore, when the present consignment was entered for export, the respondents had a bona fide belief that the subject goods can be legally exported as furniture parts order of confiscation set aside and redemption of the confiscated goods for domestic use as ordered by the original authority, but allow redemption on a reduced fine while setting aside the penalty imposed by the original authority - Department s appeal is partly allowed

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the impugned goods.
2. Applicability of prohibition on the export of the goods under the Export Licensing Schedule.
3. Application of General Rules of Interpretation for classification.
4. Validity of evidence provided by the carpenter and forest official.
5. Imposition of penalty and redemption fine.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of the Impugned Goods:
The respondents declared the goods as "New wooden furniture components (sofa frames)" for export. However, upon examination by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of Tuticorin Custom House, the goods were found to be "sawn timber" of country wood made from Aini trees and Jackfruit trees. The original authority classified the goods as sawn timber, which is prohibited for export under the Foreign Trade Policy, leading to the confiscation of the goods under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a redemption fine and penalty. The lower appellate authority, however, classified the goods as wooden furniture components and set aside the order of confiscation and penalty.

2. Applicability of Prohibition on the Export of the Goods:
The Department argued that the goods fall under Sl. No. 146 of the Export Licensing Schedule, which prohibits the export of "Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end jointed of a thickness exceeding 6 mm other than sawn timber made exclusively out of imported logs/timber." The respondents contended that the goods are unassembled sofa frames and should be classified under 9403 90 00 (parts of furniture), thus not falling under the prohibition.

3. Application of General Rules of Interpretation for Classification:
The respondents argued that the General Rules of Interpretation should apply, stating that the goods are parts of furniture and not merely sawn wood. They referenced Rule 2(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation, which classifies unassembled or disassembled articles in the same heading as assembled articles. However, the Tribunal found that the Interpretative Rules for the Import Tariff do not apply to the Export Licensing Schedule unless specifically incorporated. Note 2 under the General Notes to Export Policy clarifies that the export policy for a specific item is determined mainly by the description and nature of restriction in the schedule, with the code number being merely illustrative.

4. Validity of Evidence Provided by the Carpenter and Forest Official:
The respondents challenged the reliability of the evidence provided by the carpenter and the forest official, arguing that the carpenter was not adept in modern furniture-making techniques and the forest official was not knowledgeable about the end-use of the wood. Despite these challenges, the Tribunal found that the goods presented for export were sawn and sized wooden pieces, conforming to the description of sawn wood under Sl. No. 146 of the Export Licensing Schedule.

5. Imposition of Penalty and Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal considered the respondents' argument that there was no mala fide intention to export the goods in violation of the export policy. The respondents had a bona fide belief that the goods could be legally exported as furniture parts, based on a previous instance where similar goods were allowed for export. The Tribunal agreed to set aside the penalty imposed by the original authority and reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 25,000/- while upholding the order of confiscation and redemption of the goods for domestic use.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal, upheld the order of confiscation and redemption of the goods for domestic use with a reduced fine of Rs. 25,000/-, and set aside the penalty imposed by the original authority. The Department's appeal was partly allowed.

← Previous Next →