1986 (7) TMI 250 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether 'scoured wool' is included in the expression 'raw wool' for the purposes of item 12 of the second schedule of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934.
2. Procedural propriety in the adjudication process by the Collector of Customs, Bombay.
3. Admissibility and weight of evidence presented by both parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of 'Scoured Wool' in 'Raw Wool':
The central issue in this appeal is whether 'scoured wool' falls under the category of 'raw wool' as per item 12 of the second schedule of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. The Revenue claims that 'scoured wool' is included in 'raw wool,' while the respondents argue that 'scoured wool' is a distinct commodity. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, in his order, held that the term 'raw wool' should be interpreted in its popular and commercial sense rather than its dictionary or technical sense. He cited authoritative books and trade practices that use 'raw wool' synonymously with 'greasy wool' and concluded that 'raw wool' did not cover 'scoured wool.'

2. Procedural Propriety:
The procedural propriety of the adjudication process by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, was questioned. It was argued that the procedure adopted by the Collector was not in accordance with law, and proper opportunity was not given to the Revenue to present its case. The Collector took up the Bombay matter for adjudication immediately after dropping the Jamnagar matter on the ground of limitation. The Tribunal found that there was no credible material to show that any decision was taken to amalgamate the two matters for adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized that the Collector should have given proper notice to those handling the matter so that the Revenue's point of view and evidence could be placed before him. The Tribunal concluded that the procedure adopted by the Collector did not inspire confidence and did not conform to equity, justice, and good conscience.

3. Admissibility and Weight of Evidence:
The respondents filed a paper book containing 23 documents as evidence, which was objected to by the appellant. The Tribunal allowed these documents to be read as additional evidence, with the weight to be decided after the final hearing. The respondents also relied on various letters, opinions, and statements from experts and trade organizations to support their claim that 'scoured wool' is different from 'raw wool.' The Revenue, on the other hand, presented evidence and opinions from various authorities and experts to argue that 'scoured wool' should be treated as 'raw wool' for export purposes. The Tribunal noted that there was much to be said in support of rival claims and that the Collector of Customs should have considered all the evidence and opinions before making a decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for de novo decision to the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The evidence produced before the Tribunal was to be admitted and read as evidence before the Collector. The parties were given liberty to adduce any further evidence with the permission of the Collector. The Tribunal directed that the matter be decided within six months from the date of receipt of the orders by the Collector of Customs. The appeal was thus allowed by remand.