1990 (2) TMI 165 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct classification of imported goods for levy of countervailing duty
2. Validity of the import

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved determining the correct classification of imported goods for the levy of countervailing duty and the validity of the import. The appellants claimed that the goods should be classified under T.I. 22(i)(b).

2. The appellants imported lining materials but faced issues with the authorities regarding the classification. The Assistant Collector confiscated the goods under the Customs Act and levied duty on the coating on the fabrics, claiming the imports were umbrella cloth, not lining material, and had been underinvoiced.

3. Lower authorities found the imports to be umbrella cloth, leading to unauthorized importation and underinvoicing.

4. The appellants cleared the goods by paying redemption fine and duty but appealed the decision. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but remanded the issue of value enhancement.

5. The appeal was presented before the tribunal, with arguments from both sides being heard.

6. The appellants argued that the goods should be considered coated fabrics based on various technical definitions and contended that the lower authority ignored relevant evidence.

7. The appellants claimed the goods were covered by a valid REP license and disputed the reliance on extraneous material by the lower appellate authority.

8. The Department argued that the goods were not lining material and were correctly classified under T.I. 22(3) due to the presence of coating.

9. The appellants further argued for a different classification based on the composition of the coating material.

10. The tribunal reviewed the documents relied upon by the lower authority to make its decision.

11. The tribunal found discrepancies in the lower authority's reasoning and definitions of water-proofing and water-repellant properties, concluding that the goods did not meet the criteria for umbrella cloth.

12. The tribunal acknowledged a genuine mistake in the bill of lading correction.

13. The tribunal criticized the reliance on extraneous material and opinions not disclosed to the appellants.

14. The tribunal emphasized the need for proof of the composition of the coating for classification under T.I. 22(3).

15. The tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under T.I. 22(i)(b) and were validly imported under a valid license.

16. The tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.