1988 (8) TMI 283 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Import of Propylene Glycol under Appendix 10 for stock and sale, Confiscation and fine imposed by Customs authorities, Interpretation of Policy regarding import permissions for certain items, Classification of Propylene Glycol as a solvent, Previous policy period clearance as a precedent.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the import of three consignments of Propylene Glycol under Appendix 10 for stock and sale, contested by Customs authorities citing Policy AM 1984. The Deputy Collector ordered confiscation with redemption on payment of fines, leading to an unsuccessful appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and subsequent appeal to the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that despite not being Actual Users (Industrial), the import was permissible under Appendix 10 for stock and sale, as per paragraph 19. The contention was that Propylene Glycol, though a solvent, had multiple uses beyond solvent applications, justifying import for stock and sale. The appellant relied on a previous policy period clearance as a precedent.

The Tribunal analyzed the Policy provisions, noting exceptions under paragraph 19 allowing import by others for stock and sale for specific items. List 8 of Appendix 10 categorized items for import by Actual Users (Industrial) and others, with Part III permitting import for stock and sale. Propylene Glycol was not explicitly listed in Part III, but the appellant argued its import eligibility based on Policy interpretation.

The Department classified Propylene Glycol as a solvent under item 63 of Part II of List 8, justifying confiscation. The Tribunal considered the appellant's argument that Propylene Glycol's varied uses beyond being a solvent should exclude it from the classification, but found no merit in the contention. The Tribunal upheld the fine imposed, considering it nominal.

Regarding the reliance on previous policy period clearance, the Tribunal dismissed it as not setting a precedent, emphasizing that erroneous interpretations of Policy do not confer enforceable rights. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding no merit in the contentions raised by the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Customs authorities' decision to confiscate the consignments of Propylene Glycol and impose fines, based on the classification of Propylene Glycol as a solvent under the Policy provisions, despite the appellant's arguments on its varied uses. The Tribunal emphasized that previous clearances do not establish precedents, and erroneous interpretations do not create enforceable rights for importers.