1984 (11) TMI 211 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule.
2. Levy of additional (countervailing) duty of customs.
3. Inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value for customs duty.
4. Validity of the appeals in the absence of original assessments.
5. Execution of bank guarantees as per the Tribunal's stay order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods under Central Excise Tariff Schedule:
The primary issue discussed was the correct classification of the imported goods under the Central Excise Tariff Schedule. The Department contended that the goods were classifiable under sub-item IV of Item 18, which covers "Non-cellulosic wastes, all sorts." The respondents contested this classification, arguing that no countervailing duty was leviable on the goods. The Collector (Appeals) concluded that the wastes covered by sub-item IV should be related to the manufacture of man-made fibres and filament yarn, and not spun yarn. Consequently, the imported synthetic waste did not fall within the purview of Item 18(IV) of the Central Excise Tariff.

2. Levy of Additional (Countervailing) Duty of Customs:
The Department's basic stand was that additional duty was applicable under sub-item IV of Item 18. However, the respondents argued that no countervailing duty should be charged. The Collector (Appeals) directed that the imported synthetic waste should be assessed under any other appropriate item of the Central Excise Tariff for the purpose of levying additional duties of customs, excluding Item 18(IV).

3. Inclusion of Landing Charges in the Assessable Value for Customs Duty:
The respondents initially challenged the inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value for computing customs duty but later gave up this ground. The Collector (Appeals) held that landing charges are includable in the assessable value for the purpose of levying customs duties and additional customs duties.

4. Validity of the Appeals in the Absence of Original Assessments:
The Department argued that there was no original assessment on which a dispute could arise, as the goods were released based on the directions of the High Court without any assessment by the Customs authorities. The respondents countered that there was an assessment done on the ex-bond bills of entry, and the amount of duty was determined for the purpose of taking a bank guarantee. The Tribunal found that an appeal clearly lay to the Collector (Appeals) and further to the Tribunal, overruling the Department's objection.

5. Execution of Bank Guarantees as per the Tribunal's Stay Order:
The respondents were required to furnish bank guarantees as per the Tribunal's stay order. The Department raised a preliminary point that the respondents had not executed the bank guarantees. The respondents explained the delay was due to the old guarantees not being returned timely. The Tribunal found this explanation reasonable and proceeded with the matter, making it clear that any decision would be announced only after the bank guarantees had been executed.

Separate Judgments Delivered:
The Tribunal delivered separate judgments for the appeals related to Messrs Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., Messrs Punjab Processors Ltd., and Messrs Gandharav Trading & Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., rejecting all the appeals while allowing the assessing authority to take further action as per the directions in para 19.0 of the Collector (Appeals) order.

Conclusion:
All 44 appeals were rejected, with the appropriate assessing authority being at liberty to take further action in accordance with the directions contained in para 19.0 of the Collector (Appeals) order, without being bound by the Collector's observations elsewhere in the order.