1989 (12) TMI 210 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge of correctness of orders-in-original passed by Addl. Collector of Customs, imposition of redemption fines and penalties, validity of import licence, misdeclaration of goods, reliance on inspection report of D. G. T. D., definition of "system," excessive redemption fine, relevance of citations, denial of opportunity to rebut inspection report, requirement for de novo consideration.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the orders-in-original passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, regarding redemption fines and penalties imposed on imported goods. The Addl. Collector imposed fines and penalties on the appellants for importing goods described as components/assemblies/sub-assemblies for the manufacture of a processor-based plain copier. The appellants contended that the goods were sub-assemblies of a main drive system and did not require a separate import license. The Addl. Collector held that the imported items required a license and contravened import regulations. However, he acknowledged that there was no misdeclaration of goods in the Bills of Entry.

In Appeal No. 2813/87, the Addl. Collector imposed fines and penalties on the appellants for importing goods that did not match the description in the import license. The appellants argued that the items were covered under the license and fell under the definition of components/sub-assemblies. The Addl. Collector found no misdeclaration but held that the import was without a valid license.

The appellants contended that the Addl. Collector erred in relying on the D. G. T. D. inspection report without allowing them to rebut the findings. They argued that the definition of "system" supported their claim that the imported items were sub-assemblies of the main drive system. The appellants also challenged the imposition of a collective redemption fine for two Bills of Entry in a common order.

The Tribunal found that the Addl. Collector failed to provide the appellants with an opportunity to rebut the inspection report, leading to a denial of procedural fairness. While the definition of "system" did not conclusively support the appellants' argument, the Tribunal noted that the Addl. Collector did not consider all imported items as sub-assemblies. The Tribunal ordered a remand for de novo consideration, allowing the appellants to challenge the inspection report and demonstrate that the imported items were covered under the license. The Tribunal directed the Addl. Collector to expedite the reconsideration within four months.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for further consideration, emphasizing the appellants' right to rebut the inspection report and clarify the status of the imported items in relation to the license. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.