1987 (12) TMI 290 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of imported ink additive and ink concentrate under the Customs Policy.
- Validity of the Addl. Collector's order confiscating the items and imposing a fine.
- Interpretation of the Customs Policy regarding ink additive and ink concentrate.
- Previous import history of the items and its relevance to the current case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order of the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay, regarding the classification and clearance of imported ink additive and ink concentrate under the Customs Policy. The appellants contended that the ink additive was wrongly classified as a silicone grease and that the ink concentrate was not equivalent to ball pen ink as per the Policy.

2. The Addl. Collector had ordered confiscation of both items but allowed redemption on payment of a fine. The appellants argued that the ink additive was not a petroleum product and the ink concentrate was distinct from ball pen ink, citing supplier letters and manufacturing processes to support their claims.

3. The Customs objected to the clearance based on the classification of the items under specific entries of the Policy. The appellants highlighted discrepancies in the Addl. Collector's reliance on the Dy. Chief Chemist's opinion without independent examination of contentions or consideration of past import approvals for the same items.

4. The judgment critically analyzed the classification of the ink additive under Appendix 9 and the ink concentrate under Appendix 5 of the Policy. It emphasized the necessity to establish that the ink additive was a petroleum product of special grade and type to fall under the relevant entry, which was not proven by the department.

5. Regarding the ink concentrate, the judgment highlighted the lack of evidence or tests conducted to determine its nature and composition. The Dy. Chief Chemist's opinion indicated that the concentrate required further processing to become ball pen ink, contradicting the classification under the Policy.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of confiscation and the fine imposed. It concluded that the appellants, as industrial users requiring the items for their end product, were eligible to import under the Policy. The decision emphasized the need for proper classification and evidence to support Customs actions under the Policy.