Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1998 (7) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1998 (7) TMI 91 - SC - CustomsPhotographic/Cinematographic Colour Films (Unexposed) - Classification - Exemption - Confiscation and penalty (Customs) - Mis-declaration - Import trade control - Appeal - Hearing - Intervener
Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of Goods 2. Eligibility for Exemption Notifications 3. Classification of Imported Goods 4. Actual User (Industrial) Status 5. Legality of Import under Open General Licence (OGL) 6. Confiscation and Penalty Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Misdeclaration of Goods: The appellant was charged with misdeclaring the imported goods as "Cinematographic Colour Films (Unexposed) Positive" instead of "Colour films-jumbo rolls" to evade customs duty. The Collector initially held that the appellant provided a specific description of the goods, including their length and width, and classified them under the correct tariff heading. However, CEGAT found that the goods were misdeclared, as they were not ready for use on a projector or camera without further processing. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the appellant did not misdeclare the goods since the description matched the classification under the relevant customs tariff heading. 2. Eligibility for Exemption Notifications: The Collector denied the appellant's claim for exemptions under Notifications Nos. 52/86-Cus. and 50/88-C.E., as the goods were identified as jumbo rolls, not eligible for the claimed exemptions. CEGAT upheld this finding. The Supreme Court agreed that the appellant was not entitled to the exemptions claimed but clarified that the appellant's declaration was based on a belief and could not be considered a misdeclaration with dishonest intent. 3. Classification of Imported Goods: The appellant classified the imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading 3702.41. The Collector and CEGAT held that the goods were not Cinematographic Films as they required slitting and perforation. The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, explaining that the goods fell under the same heading, whether classified as Photographic or Cinematographic Films, as there was no separate heading for Cinematographic Films (Unexposed). Thus, the classification by the appellant was correct. 4. Actual User (Industrial) Status: CEGAT held that the appellant was not an actual user (industrial) as it lacked an industrial licence under the IDR Act. The Supreme Court found this incorrect, noting that the appellant, a small-scale industrial unit, had a registration certificate from the Director of Industries, Uttar Pradesh. The IDR Act did not require a licence unless the industrial activity was carried out in a factory employing fifty or more workers, which was not the case for the appellant. 5. Legality of Import under Open General Licence (OGL): CEGAT found the import illegal due to the lack of an industrial licence, thus not qualifying as an actual user (industrial). The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the appellant met the definition of actual user (industrial) under the Import and Export Policy with its registration certificate, making the import under OGL lawful. 6. Confiscation and Penalty: The Collector ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed fines and penalties based on the findings of misdeclaration and unauthorized import. CEGAT upheld these orders. The Supreme Court, however, set aside the orders of confiscation, fine, and penalty, concluding that the appellant did not misdeclare the goods, was eligible to import under OGL, and did not act with dishonest intent. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of confiscation, fine, and penalty, and held that the appellant did not misdeclare the goods, was entitled to import under OGL, and did not act with dishonest intent. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
|