2008 (2) TMI 135 - AT - Customs

Import of 100% Cotton Woven Dyed Fabrics & clearance against advance licence - revenue found that impugned goods were restricted for import except against a valid licence confiscation on ground that impugned goods not suitable for manufacture of made-ups & not covered by advance licence finding that goods imported conformed to the description of goods allowed to be imported in terms of advance licence, is justified - import didn t contravene any prohibition so confiscation is not justified

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Trade Regulations Act.
2. Validity of advance license for clearance of goods.
3. Consideration of case laws related to import against advance license.
4. Nexus between exported goods and goods allowed to be imported.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against an order by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of imported 100% Cotton Woven Dyed Fabrics under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Trade and (Development) Regulations Act. The original authority had classified the goods under a specific category and confiscated them under relevant sections of the Acts. An option to redeem the goods was provided along with a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision based on the mismatch with the advance license issued against export of different goods.

2. The key issue revolved around the validity of the advance license (No. 012619 dated 3-12-1998) for the clearance of the imported fabrics. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the imported goods did not align with the purpose specified in the advance license, which was issued against export of made-ups. This discrepancy led to the affirmation of the original authority's decision to confiscate the goods.

3. The importer had cited several case laws in support of their argument, but the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider them relevant as they pertained to imports made under specific notifications. The Commissioner emphasized the necessity of establishing a nexus between the exported goods and the goods intended for import under the advance license. The lack of alignment between the goods exported and those sought to be imported played a crucial role in the decision-making process.

4. Upon a thorough review of the case records, the Tribunal found that the imported goods matched the description specified in the advance license. This alignment indicated that the import did not violate any prohibitions, rendering the order of confiscation unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of consistency between the goods specified in the advance license and those actually imported.

Additional Note:
The Tribunal issued a directive regarding a document (Final Order No. 63/2008) issued by the Registry, clarifying that it should not be considered as the order of the Bench. This note served to avoid confusion and ensure clarity regarding the official orders of the Tribunal.