1988 (12) TMI 273 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of consignments of Velvet declared as Artificial Fur Cloth under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Validity of REP Licences for clearance of imported goods.
3. Reliance on expert opinion and licensing authority's clarification.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Confiscation of consignments
The appeal challenged the order of confiscation of consignments of Velvet declared as Artificial Fur Cloth under the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector of Customs ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act, citing misdeclaration of goods. The appellants imported the goods under two Bills of Entry, claiming clearance against REP Licences. The Custom House suspected misdeclaration and initiated an investigation. Samples were tested, and expert opinion confirmed the goods were Velvet, not Artificial Fur Cloth. The Collector held that the goods were restricted for import and the licences produced were invalid. The appellants argued that the Collector's reliance on the expert opinion was flawed, but failed to cross-examine the expert or challenge the licensing authority's clarification.

Issue 2: Validity of REP Licences
The appellants contended that the REP Licences covered the imported goods, but the licensing authorities disagreed. The Collector relied on the licensing authority's opinion that the goods did not qualify for import under the licences. The appellants failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claim that the goods were covered by the licences. The Collector's decision was based on expert opinion and official clarification, which deemed the goods ineligible for import under the licences issued.

Issue 3: Reliance on expert opinion and licensing authority's clarification
The appellants disputed the expert opinion and licensing authority's clarification regarding the imported goods. The expert opined that the samples were Velvet, not Artificial Fur Cloth, based on weave structure. The licensing authority concurred, stating the goods did not qualify for import under the licences. The Collector upheld the expert opinion and official clarification, citing policy provisions that dictate the finality of the CCIE's interpretation. The appellants' argument that the goods resembled natural fur was deemed insufficient, as it was based on shipping samples and not samples from the imported consignments. The Collector's decision was supported by expert opinion and official clarification, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Collector's order of confiscation and redemption fine, emphasizing the importance of expert opinion and official clarification in determining the eligibility of imported goods under the issued licences. The appellants' failure to challenge the expert opinion and provide substantial evidence led to the rejection of their appeal.