9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the goods imported are wool waste covered under Tariff Heading 51.03 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Whether the value adopted by the department is correct. Analysis: The case involved an appeal regarding the classification of goods imported by the appellants as wool waste under Tariff Heading 51.03 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the correctness of the value adopted by the department. The appellants imported goods described as "mixed coloured woollen thread waste," but upon examination, it was found that 70% of the goods were woollen yarn in the form of cones and spools, and 30% was thread waste. The department alleged that the goods were imported in contravention of the import license and were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority held the goods liable to confiscation and imposed a fine and penalty. The authority also fixed the value of the goods based on best judgment assessment. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority's finding lacked evidence regarding the trade understanding of wool waste under Tariff Heading 51.03. They contended that the goods imported, even in the form of spools and cones, should not be considered serviceable yarn. The appellant highlighted the absence of a statutory definition of wool waste in the tariff and presented evidence regarding the nature of the imported goods. They also referenced previous tribunal decisions supporting their position and offered to mutilate the goods to conform to the Customs authorities' understanding of wool waste. The department reiterated the adjudicating authority's findings, stating that since the goods were not thread waste as declared but in the form of spools and cones, they did not qualify as wool waste under Tariff Heading 51.03. The department argued that the goods were misdeclared and not covered by the import license. After considering both arguments, the tribunal found merit in the appellant's position. They noted that the department failed to provide evidence regarding the trade understanding of wool waste and the goods in question. Citing previous tribunal decisions, the tribunal emphasized that the form of the yarn waste, such as hanks, did not disqualify it from being classified as wool waste. The tribunal concluded that the charge of misdeclaration was not tenable, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the release of the goods to the appellant. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the department's classification of the imported goods as not being wool waste under Tariff Heading 51.03.
|
