1990 (1) TMI 213 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against orders of confiscation of imported goods and imposition of redemption fines.
- Interpretation of Import Export Policy regarding classification of imported goods as tool/die steel flats.
- Dispute over whether the goods fall under Serial No. 4 of Appendix 4, Part-C or Serial No. 9(b) of Appendix 3, Part-B.

Analysis:
The judgment involves six appeals challenging orders of confiscation of imported goods and imposition of redemption fines. The goods in question were declared as alloy steel material in the Bills of Entries based on Mills Test Certificates, with chromium content around 12% and carbon content around 2%. The Collector of Customs considered the importations unauthorized due to classification as tool and die steel flats, leading to confiscation and fines. The appellants argued that the goods fell under Serial No. 4 of Appendix 4, Part-C, covering flats of all grades of alloy steel, including tool/die steel. They contended that the specific description in Appendix 4 prevailed over the generic description in Appendix 3. The Collector's grounds were deemed contradictory, and it was argued that tool/die steel flats were not excluded from coverage under Serial No. 4 of Appendix 4.

The judgment deliberated on the conflicting interpretations of the Import Export Policy regarding the classification of the imported goods. Serial No. 4 of Appendix 4, Part-C encompassed flats of all grades of alloy steel not elsewhere stated, while Serial No. 9(b) of Appendix 3, Part-B mentioned forged/rolled tool and die steel but did not specifically include flats of tool/die steel. The court analyzed the specific entries in the appendices and the clarification provided in the Policy, determining that the goods, being flats of tool/die steel, were covered under Serial No. 4 of Appendix 4, Part-C. It was emphasized that the specific description prevailed over the generic description, leading to the conclusion that the goods were appropriately classified under the license.

In conclusion, the court set aside the impugned orders and allowed all six appeals, declaring that the subject goods were covered under the license and that the Collector's findings were not in accordance with the Import Export Policy of 1984-1985. The appellants were granted consequential reliefs, highlighting the importance of accurate classification under the specified appendices for imported goods.