9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against the Order of Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay for confiscation and fine on imported goods. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported goods by the customs department. The appellants, actual users, imported a consignment of 12% Nickelply Wire Cloth Cold Bonded/Mesh Nickel/Cold Bonded Wire Cloth under OGL Appendix 10 Sr. No. 1 of AM 1983. The customs department objected, claiming the goods fell under Serial 502 of Appendix 3 of AM 83, requiring a specific license. The Additional Collector ordered confiscation of the goods valued at Rs. 2,33,423.00 but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000. The appeal challenged this order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine. The appellants argued through their consultant that the goods were wrongly described as wire cloth in the invoice by the suppliers. They provided clarifications from manufacturers stating the material was a special mesh used in nickel cadmium batteries manufacturing, requiring cold bonded mesh. They referenced letters from authorities confirming import under OGL and not falling under specific appendices of the ITC Policy. Additionally, they highlighted a letter from a government undertaking seeking clarification on a similar consignment, which was also imported under OGL. The appellants contended that the goods were bonded mesh, not woven wire cloth, and suitable for battery manufacturing, not covered under Serial 502 of Appendix 3. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the goods were woven material of nickel-coated steel wire, falling under Serial No. 502 of Appendix 3. They disputed the validity of the clarifications provided by the appellants and emphasized the specific description of the goods in the invoice and technical data. The Respondent also questioned the timing and relevance of the clarification from DGTD, suggesting a remand if to be considered. After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal observed that the imported item was indeed a woven material but for a specialized purpose of manufacturing Nickel Cadmium Batteries, distinguishing it from ordinary wire cloth. The Tribunal noted the appellants' proactive approach in seeking essentiality certificates and clarifications from authorities before import. The Tribunal found persuasive value in the subsequent clarification from DGTD, indicating import under OGL during the relevant policy period. The Tribunal emphasized that when two views are possible, the one favorable to the appellants should prevail, especially considering their efforts to seek guidance before import. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellants.
|
