9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported items under the Policy. 2. Eligibility for import under OGL. 3. Confiscation and fine imposed by the Addl. Collector. 4. Interpretation of relevant entries in Appendices 5 and 9 of the Policy. Analysis: Issue 1: The appellants imported ink additive and ink concentrate seeking clearance under OGL. Customs objected, stating the ink additive was a silicone grease under Appendix 9 and ink concentrate was akin to ball pen ink under Appendix 5. Issue 2: The Addl. Collector ordered confiscation but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. Appellants contended the ink additive was not a petroleum product and the ink concentrate was not ball pen ink, supported by supplier letters, manufacturing processes, and expert opinions. Issue 3: The Addl. Collector's order was based on the Dy. Chief Chemist's report, classifying the items as per Appendices 5 and 9. The fine imposed was challenged as excessive, while past import approvals were cited as precedents. Issue 4: The judgment scrutinized the Addl. Collector's reliance on the Dy. C.C.'s opinion without independent examination. It highlighted discrepancies in classifying the ink additive as a petroleum product and the ink concentrate as ball pen ink, emphasizing the need for specific evidence. The judgment emphasized the necessity of establishing the nature of imported items accurately for proper classification under the Policy. It critiqued the Addl. Collector's failure to address appellants' contentions and past practices. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the confiscation and fine, emphasizing the appellants' eligibility as industrial users under the Policy.
|
