1998 (1) TMI 78 - SC - Customs

Whether the Collector as well as the Tribunal have erred in placing reliance on the Test Report dated December 9 1986 wherein the Gum Rosin imported by the appellants has been graded as WG Grade? Held that - The finding in the test report was supported by other material on record viz. the statement of Shri Saigal the proprietor of the indenting agents M/s. Appollo International the telex message seized from the office of the indenting agents and the letter of M/s. R.R. Mewani Ltd. which show that the Gum Rosin imported by the appellants was of WG WW and N Grade and the price of the Gum Rosin of these grades was US 465 per M.T. The finding recorded by the Collector of Customs which has been affirmed by the Tribunal is thus a finding of fact based on material on record. No ground is made out for interfering with the said finding. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdescription of imported goods as 'FAQ' Grade.
2. Discrepancy in grading and pricing of imported goods.
3. Reliance on test report lacking specific facilities.
4. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Tribunal.

Analysis:

1. The appellants imported 'Gum Rosin' from Singapore, misdescribed as 'FAQ' Grade, but later found to be 'WG' Grade. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation and imposed fines and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the findings but reduced the fines by half.

2. The main contention was the reliance on a test report lacking specific facilities for grading. The report mentioned the sample's characteristics matching 'WG' Grade, supported by statements from the indenting agent and other evidence. The Tribunal found the grading and pricing discrepancies based on substantial evidence.

3. The argument against the test report's reliability due to inadequate facilities was dismissed. The Tribunal affirmed the findings based on various corroborative evidence, including statements from involved parties and industry standards, supporting the 'WG' Grade classification.

4. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the redemption fine and penalties was based on the upheld findings regarding the misdescription of the imported goods and the discrepancies in grading and pricing. The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, with no order as to costs.