1983 (6) TMI 91 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal to hear the appeal.
2. Validity of the import licence for crude emetine vis-`a-vis emetine hydrochloride.
3. Misdeclaration of goods and the requirement for amendment or recommendation letter for the import licence.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal:
The learned departmental representative objected to the appeal being heard on merits, arguing that it involved a question relating to the rate of duty of Customs and should be heard by the Special Bench as per Section 129-C(3) of the Customs Act. The appellants had initially filed the appeal with the Special Bench at Delhi, indicating that the order involved a rate of duty matter. However, the Sr. Vice-President transferred the appeal to the West Regional Bench at Bombay, deciding that the matter did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Bench. Upon examining the subject, it was determined that the order-under-appeal dealt with the validity of the import licence and not the rate of duty. Therefore, the objection was overruled, and the appeal was deemed within the jurisdiction of the West Regional Bench.

2. Validity of the Import Licence:
The appellants contended that crude emetine and emetine hydrochloride are the same substances, supported by a certificate from Dr. Nityanand, Director, Central Drug Research Institute. They argued that the licence for crude emetine should cover emetine hydrochloride, as the latter is an unstable compound stored in acidic salt form. The Addl. Collector, however, held that the licence was valid only for crude emetine, not emetine hydrochloride, and thus the imported goods were not covered by the licence. The departmental representative supported this view, stating that the goods imported were different from those described in the licence. The tribunal concluded that Dr. Nityanand's certificate could not be treated as valid for interpreting the import licence and that the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports had not issued a clarification equating the two substances. Consequently, the licence for crude emetine was not valid for emetine hydrochloride.

3. Misdeclaration of Goods and Requirement for Amendment or Recommendation Letter:
The departmental representative highlighted that the goods were misdeclared as crude emetine in the Bill of Entry and invoice, but were found to be crude emetine hydrochloride upon examination. The appellants did not apply for an amendment of the licence or a recommendation letter, assuming the licence was valid. The tribunal noted that there was no evidence of past clearances of similar imports without issues and that sufficient time had elapsed for the appellants to seek an amendment or recommendation. The tribunal found no reason to accept the appellants' contention and confirmed the Addl. Collector's order, rejecting the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Addl. Collector's order of confiscating the goods and allowing redemption on payment of a fine, as the import licence for crude emetine was not valid for importing emetine hydrochloride. The tribunal also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, focusing on the validity of the import licence rather than the rate of duty.