9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge against order of confiscation and fine levied, classification of imported goods as rubber hose or article of steel, excessive fine in lieu of confiscation, consideration of appellants as actual users, reduction of fine percentage.
In this case, the appeal was filed against the order-in-original by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, confiscating 138 bales of Hydraulics Hose and imposing a fine of Rs. 75,000 in lieu of confiscation. The main contention raised by the Appellant's representative was that the imported goods were articles of steel, not rubber hose, as determined by the Collector. The Appellant argued that the steel wire content in the hose was higher than the rubber content, indicating it should be classified as steel under the relevant policy. Additionally, the Appellant relied on the catalogue of Dunlop Hydraulic Hose Ltd. to support their claim. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative argued that the goods fell under the category of rubber hose as per the Tariff Heading 40.05/16.1 and that the fine imposed was justified as it amounted to 30% of the c.i.f. value of the goods. Upon reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal considered whether the imported goods should be classified as rubber hose or articles of steel. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant failed to produce essential documents such as the indent placed with the foreign supplier and the invoice during the appeal hearing. The order of the Collector revealed that the goods were functionally and descriptively identified as Rubber Hose, with steel wires used for reinforcement, supporting the classification as rubber hose. The Tribunal emphasized that the material's function and trade perception were crucial in classification, and since no trade opinion or documentation supported the steel classification claim, the Collector's decision to treat the goods as rubber hose was upheld. Regarding the quantum of the fine, the Tribunal acknowledged that the Appellants were manufacturers of Hydraulic high impulse assemblies and imported the hydraulic hose for manufacturing purposes. Considering this, the Tribunal reduced the fine from 30% to 25% of the c.i.f. value, granting the Appellants the corresponding relief. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation order but adjusted the fine percentage, providing a favorable outcome for the Appellants in terms of the reduced penalty.
|
