Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 1994 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1994 (2) TMI 165 - AT - Customs

Issues: Classification of imported goods as wool yarn or wool waste under Customs Act, 1962.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, involved an appeal arising from an adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Madurai, regarding the classification of imported goods. The appellants had imported a consignment declared as wool waste but were later found to be wool yarn in spool form upon detailed examination. The department alleged misdeclaration and issued a show cause notice under Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that the goods should be classified as wool yarn instead of wool waste. The Additional Collector ordered confiscation of the consignment under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to clear the goods on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty on the appellants.

The appellant's counsel argued that the mere presence of goods in spools should not automatically classify them as wool yarn, citing precedents from previous Tribunal decisions. The Additional Collector's findings that the goods were not uniform in length and unsuitable for weaving were highlighted as supporting the appellant's case.

The department, represented by the ld. S.D.R., supported the reasoning in the Additional Collector's order.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found that the department failed to substantiate the classification of the goods as wool yarn. The samples were not tested by experts, and the visual examination revealed the goods were not uniform in length and not suitable for weaving. Referring to previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal emphasized that the goods being in spools alone did not justify classification as wool yarn, especially in the absence of expert opinions and evidence supporting the department's case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, indicating substantial merit in the appellant's arguments.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates