1988 (3) TMI 302 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the import of Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY) under Open General Licence (OGL) by the appellants.
2. Correct interpretation of Entry 23(1) of the First Schedule to the Industrial (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 (IDR Act).
3. Adjudication of the Collector's order regarding the import of PFY and the conditions imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Import of Polyester Filament Yarn (PFY) under OGL:
The appellants, M/s. Swan Mills Ltd., imported PFY under OGL 1/81 dated 3.4.1981 and faced objections from Customs regarding the clearance of the goods for bonding. The Customs also raised objections for the clearance of two other consignments of PFY imported by the appellants. The Collector of Customs exercised his revisional power under Section 130 of the Customs Act and issued a review notice to the appellants, questioning the clearance and proposing confiscation and penalties.

2. Correct Interpretation of Entry 23(1) of the First Schedule to the IDR Act:
The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Entry 23(1) which reads: "Textiles (including those dyed, printed or otherwise processed) made wholly or in part of cotton, including cotton yarn, hosiery and rope." The appellants argued that this entry covered fabrics made with cotton yarn in the warp and PFY in the weft. The Collector, however, interpreted that the term "cotton" in the entry referred to fiber and not to cotton yarn. The Tribunal found that the Collector raised a needless controversy and failed to recognize the broader interpretation supported by various authorities, including the Textile Commissioner and the Ministry of Law.

3. Adjudication of the Collector's Order:
The Collector's lengthy order concluded that the Registration Certificate did not permit the import of PFY as it did not fall under the category of "Textiles made in part of cotton." Despite allowing the release of the goods on caution due to past permissions, the Collector warned against future leniency. The Tribunal criticized the Collector for ignoring the Textile Commissioner's notification, the Law Department's opinion, and the Public Notice issued by the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports. The Tribunal emphasized that the Collector should have respected these authoritative interpretations rather than relying solely on an American textile authority. The Tribunal also noted that the Collector's interpretation contradicted the statutory notifications and the High Court's acceptance of the Central Government's position regarding the use of PFY by textile manufacturers.

The Tribunal concluded that the Collector committed a grave error in his interpretation and should have adhered to the established guidelines and notifications. The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, stating that if the goods were not liable to confiscation, they should be released unconditionally without any caution or warning regarding future consignments. The Tribunal suggested that if the Collector desired his interpretation to prevail, he could have issued a Trade Notice to serve that purpose.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Collector's order and releasing the goods unconditionally. The Collector's interpretation of the Registration Certificate and the conditions imposed on the release of goods were deemed erroneous and inconsistent with the authoritative interpretations and statutory notifications.