1996 (11) TMI 75 - SC - Customs

Whether the imported goods fall within the description lining material or fabrics, made from man-made fibres/yarns falling at Item 25 of the List of Non-permissible Items for import under Appendix 4? Held that - It is not clear that the majority view of the Tribunal in this behalf is not based on basic authorities even if the expert opinion of consumers of such material is ignored. It is rightly pointed out that if the opinion evidence adduced on either side is ignored and if the opinion of the Textile Commissioner is also brushed aside as the Collector had done, what is left to be considered is the relevant Policy and the Collector s subjective satisfaction; that is, his own expertise. The majority after examining the basic authorities and after pointing out how the Collector s expertise based on Shri Sharma s opinion ran contrary to the basic materials, has rejected his conclusion. The approach adopted by the majority could not be said to be erroneous in any manner whatsoever. Besides, as stated earlier, this being a question of fact we see no reason why we should take a different view than the one taken by the majority. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the material in question is lining material. Appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Alleged fabrication of Bills of Entry regarding imported goods.
2. Incorrect declaration of value leading to under-valuation of imported goods.
3. Classification of imported goods as lining material or man-made fabrics.
4. Authenticity and admissibility of documents collected from Japan in evidence.
5. Interpretation of Import and Export Policy regarding width limitation for imported goods.
6. Subjective satisfaction of Collector of Customs in determining the nature of imported goods.

Analysis:
1. The case involved allegations of fabrication of Bills of Entry for imported goods, leading to suspicion by the Customs authorities. The investigation revealed discrepancies in the dates and values declared in the Bills of Lading, prompting a supplementary show cause notice to be issued to the importers.

2. The Customs authorities alleged that the imported goods were under-valued, with the actual value being significantly higher than the declared value. This discrepancy in valuation was a key point of contention between the parties, leading to penalties and confiscation of goods by the Collector of Customs.

3. The central issue revolved around the classification of the imported goods as either lining material or man-made fabrics. The Collector of Customs determined that the goods were not lining material, which had implications for the validity of the import licenses held by the respondents.

4. The admissibility and authenticity of documents collected from Japan were crucial in establishing the correct value of the imported goods. The majority opinion in the CEGAT held that the documents lacked proper authentication and raised doubts about their reliability, impacting the Customs authorities' case.

5. Interpretation of the Import and Export Policy regarding the width limitation for imported goods played a significant role in the classification of the goods. The change in the policy document and its retrospective application were debated, with the majority view favoring a prospective interpretation to avoid unforeseen consequences for importers.

6. The subjective satisfaction of the Collector of Customs in determining the nature of the imported goods was challenged by the respondents. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant material and concluded that the goods in question indeed qualified as lining material, contrary to the Collector's assessment.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the majority view of the CEGAT regarding the classification of the imported goods as lining material. The Court found no merit in the appeals and allowed the respondents to withdraw the money without any order as to costs.

← Previous Next →