1986 (11) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Tariff Item 90.17/18, Benefit of Notification No. 208/81-Cus., Entitlement to import under OGL, Rejection of claims by Collector, Remand by Tribunal, Consideration of certificates from DGHS and Dr. H.S. Bhat, Detention of goods, Principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the classification of goods imported as 'Drainage Bags' by the appellants, claiming them as 'life saving surgical & medical equipment' under Tariff Item 90.17/18 and seeking benefits under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. and OGL. The Collector rejected these claims, ordering confiscation with a redemption fine. The Tribunal remanded the matter for re-adjudication based on a certificate from Dr. A.K. Bhaumik. However, the Collector's subsequent order again rejected the claims but reduced the redemption fine. The second rejection was primarily based on a certificate from Dr. H.S. Bhat, ignoring the DGHS certificate considered by the Tribunal earlier.

The Tribunal highlighted the Collector's failure to address the DGHS certificate, emphasizing its relevance under the Notification and principles of natural justice. The second show cause notice focused solely on Dr. H.S. Bhat's certificate, omitting any mention of the DGHS certificate. The appellants argued against reliance on Dr. Bhat's opinion due to procedural lapses in obtaining and considering the sample without their presence or notice. The Tribunal found the Collector's observations regarding the appellants' failure to controvert points in the order misconceived, given the lack of prior knowledge.

Due to these significant flaws, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter again to the Collector for a fresh decision. The Collector was instructed to consider both certificates, conduct a new sample examination in the appellants' presence, and ensure compliance with principles of natural justice. The Collector was directed to conclude the proceedings within two months to address the prolonged detention of goods. Consequently, the appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the need for a fair and thorough re-evaluation of the evidence and claims presented.

This detailed analysis outlines the procedural irregularities, evidentiary considerations, and the Tribunal's insistence on upholding principles of natural justice in the adjudication process concerning the classification and benefits related to the imported goods.