1992 (5) TMI 106 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Excess bags of raw asbestos fiber in Customs Warehouse.
2. Dispute regarding loading and quantity of goods.
3. Evidence required to prove quantity of goods loaded.
4. Interpretation of Collector (Appeals) order.
5. Scope of remand and adjudicating authority's error.

Issue 1: Excess bags of raw asbestos fiber in Customs Warehouse
The appeal concerned the clearance of 156 excess bags of raw asbestos fiber deposited in the Customs Warehouse. The dispute arose when the Assistant Collector directed the appellants to clear the excess bags on payment of appropriate duty and interest, which was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

Issue 2: Dispute regarding loading and quantity of goods
The importers contended that the excess bags alleged to have been received at the Customs Warehouse were not recorded by the Railways and Bombay Customs. They argued that both railway wagons were loaded to maximum capacity, making it impossible for further loading of 156 bags. However, the Assistant Collector confirmed the excess and demanded duty based on the examination report and bill of entry.

Issue 3: Evidence required to prove quantity of goods loaded
The Collector (Appeals) observed that evidence, such as Railway Receipts, Shipping Bill, and Bill of Entry, should be considered. He emphasized the importance of verifying the quantity loaded into wagons sealed under Customs supervision and noted that the seal should not be tampered with. The confirmation from Bombay Customs House regarding the dispatched goods was crucial.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Collector (Appeals) order
The Collector (Appeals) had issued clear guidelines, questioning the possibility of excess loading when wagons were sealed under Customs supervision. He emphasized the need to consider evidence and indicated that the benefit of doubt should favor the appellants if the seal was intact. The lower authorities were criticized for not adhering to these guidelines.

Issue 5: Scope of remand and adjudicating authority's error
The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had erred by going beyond the scope of the remand order issued by the Collector (Appeals). The lower appellate authority also deviated from the remand's purpose. The Tribunal disagreed with the argument that the Collector (Appeals) order was open for interpretation, stating that the order was clear and specific in its scope.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of following the guidelines set by the Collector (Appeals) and limiting the adjudication to the scope of the remand order.