9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods imported are covered by the licenses produced. 2. Whether the value declared by the appellants is acceptable in terms of Section 14(1)(a) or whether there is any justification for upward revision of the value as held by the Collector. Detailed Analysis: 1. Coverage of Goods by Licenses Produced: The appellants imported PVC insulating tapes, claiming they fall under the description of "Self Adhesive Tapes" as allowed by their import licenses under para 6 of Appendix 17 of the Import Trade Policy, 1985-88. The lower authority did not consider the imported tapes as self-adhesive tapes for packing material, leading to confiscation and imposition of fines. The appellants argued that the tapes, although used for insulation, also serve bundling and reinforcing purposes, which they equated to packing. They contended that para 6 did not restrict the nature of packing material, unlike para 7, and cited past instances where similar goods were cleared under the same category. The Tribunal observed that the imported tapes, despite having self-adhesive properties, were primarily designed for insulation purposes, as evidenced by the manufacturer's catalog. The tapes were not intended for packing purposes, which is a requirement under para 6 for self-adhesive tapes to be imported as packing material. The Tribunal concluded that the tapes imported did not meet the criteria set out in para 6 and were not covered by the licenses produced. 2. Acceptability of Declared Value: The Collector revised the value of the imported goods from $0.042 per roll to $0.066 per roll based on comparisons with other brands and imports. The appellants argued that this revision was unjustified as the Collector did not provide them with the evidence used for the valuation, nor did he consider the contemporaneous import values they presented. The Tribunal noted that the Collector did not furnish evidence of contemporaneous imports or rebut the appellants' claims of similar goods being imported at comparable values. The burden of proving under-valuation rests on the Department, which failed to provide adequate evidence to support the revised valuation. The Tribunal found the Collector's conclusions to be based on insufficient analysis and evidence. The Tribunal held that the declared value should be accepted as there was no substantial evidence to justify the upward revision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's findings on the revaluation of the goods. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the order of confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh. The charge of under-valuation was not sustained, and no malafides were attributed to the appellants, leading to the setting aside of the personal penalty. The appeal was partially allowed in these terms.
|
