1989 (7) TMI 232 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras
- Stay application filed by Assistant Collector of Customs (COFEPOSA), Bangalore
- Interpretation of Notification No. 188/87-Cus.
- Validity of stay application signing
- Financial position of the respondent
- Prima facie case on merits

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Customs, Bangalore, challenging the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras. Additionally, a Stay Application was filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs (COFEPOSA), Bangalore. The main contention raised by the Appellant was that the benefit of Notification No. 188/87-Cus. was incorrectly extended to the Respondents as the goods imported did not match the specifications mentioned in the notification. The goods imported were 12V DC 50 ma, 30V DC 0.1A, and 30V DC 0.3A, which were different from those specified in the notification.

2. The Appellant argued that as per Notification No. 188/87-Cus., the benefit was only available to switches with a contract rating less than 5 amps at 250 volts AC or DC, which did not align with the goods imported by the Respondents. Reference was made to a judgment of the Madras High Court emphasizing strict construction of exemption notifications. The Appellant pleaded for the grant of stay based on these grounds.

3. The Respondents, represented by their Advocate, raised a preliminary objection regarding the validity of the stay application signing. On the merits, it was argued that the financial position of the Respondents was strong, paying a significant amount in Customs duty annually. They contended that any error in the notification should not penalize the Respondents. Reference was made to legal principles allowing for correction of clerical errors and judgments supporting a broad interpretation of notifications.

4. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal found that the Assistant Collector was duly authorized to sign the stay application. Regarding the merits, it was noted that the goods imported did not match the specifications in Notification No. 188/87-Cus., indicating a prima facie case in favor of the revenue. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal held that the Respondents did not qualify for the benefit under the notification. Consequently, the impugned order was stayed, and the Respondents were allowed to file an application for early hearing if desired.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments presented by both parties and the Tribunal's reasoning in reaching its decision.