1990 (8) TMI 289 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods as lining material versus shirting and dress materials.
2. Alleged manipulation of Bill of Lading (B/L) dates.
3. Validity of licenses at the time of shipment.
4. Consideration of alternative valid licenses.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The primary issue was whether the imported goods were lining materials or shirting and dress materials. The appellant argued that the goods were lining materials, as supported by a previous Tribunal decision in the case of East Punjab Traders. The Tribunal had held that the Department did not discharge the burden of proving the materials were not lining materials. The appellant's case was identical, and thus, the same reasoning was applied, concluding that the Department failed to prove the goods were not lining materials.

2. Alleged Manipulation of Bill of Lading (B/L) Dates:
The Department alleged that the B/L dates were altered from 25-10-1983 to 25-3-1983 to match the validity of the licenses. The Tribunal referenced the East Punjab Traders case, where it was determined that the importers were not personally involved in the falsification of dates. Applying the same reasoning, the Tribunal found no evidence of the appellant's personal involvement in date manipulation, thus setting aside penalties related to this allegation.

3. Validity of Licenses at the Time of Shipment:
The licenses presented by the appellant were not valid on the actual shipment date of 25-10-1983. The Tribunal noted that the Collector's order was based on specific licenses that had expired by the shipment date. The appellant's plea that they had alternative valid licenses was not recorded during the original proceedings.

4. Consideration of Alternative Valid Licenses:
The appellant claimed to have had alternative valid licenses at the time of import, which the Collector did not consider. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remand, directing the Department to verify the appellant's claim of possessing valid licenses at the time of import. The appellant was instructed to submit these licenses and related documents within 15 days. If the Collector finds the licenses valid, they should reassess the import's validity in light of the Tribunal's decision in the East Punjab Traders case.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal remanded the case for further consideration, allowing the appellant to present alternative valid licenses. The Collector was directed to reassess the validity of the imports based on these licenses and the Tribunal's previous rulings. The appeal was disposed of with these observations, providing the appellant an opportunity to substantiate their claims regarding the licenses.