9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of entry at S. No. 1 of Appendix 6 of the ITC Policy April 1985-March 1988 vs. entry at S. No. 31 of Appendix 2, Part B regarding import of "non-woven surgical dressings bandages" and the requirement of a license. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved a dispute over whether "non-woven surgical dressings bandages" fell under the entry at S. No. 1 of Appendix 6 of the ITC Policy or under the entry at S. No. 31 of Appendix 2, Part B, which required a license for import. The appellant argued that the goods were covered by the former entry and hence did not require a license. The department, on the other hand, contended that the goods fell under the latter entry, necessitating a license for import. The appellant emphasized that the term "fabric" in the relevant entry should be interpreted to exclude non-woven materials, citing the Oxford Dictionary definition of fabric. They also highlighted the use of non-woven fabrics in other parts of the Policy to support their argument. The adjudicating authority, however, ruled that the term "fabric" in the context of the Policy encompassed non-woven materials as well, based on literature provided by the appellant and the nature of the imported material being man-made fiber. Consequently, the goods were deemed to require a license for import. The appellant further relied on judgments from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to support their interpretation that "fabric" specifically referred to woven material. However, the Tribunal found these judgments to be inapplicable to the current case, emphasizing that the ITC Policy itself distinguished between woven and non-woven fabrics. The Tribunal concluded that the expression "fabric" in the relevant entry encompassed both woven and non-woven fabrics, aligning with the adjudicating authority's decision. The CCCN Code assigned to the entry was deemed irrelevant for interpreting the scope of the term "fabrics" in the Policy, as it was primarily for data collection purposes and not for classification guidance. Regarding the imposition of a penalty on the appellant, the Tribunal agreed that the appellant's belief that the goods fell under the Open General License was genuine, given the interpretation of the term "fabric" in the relevant entry. Consequently, the penalty imposed was set aside. The Tribunal confirmed the impugned order with this modification, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
|
