1994 (7) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Classification of goods as handicrafts for export.
3. Compliance with the Import and Export Policy for handicrafts made of sandalwood.
4. Validity and acceptance of certificates issued by authorities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appellants sought condonation of delay in filing the appeals, arguing that the delay was due to pursuing remedies before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The High Court had observed that if the appeals were barred by limitation, the appellants could file an application to excuse the delay on the ground of prosecuting the matter in the High Court. The Tribunal, considering the High Court's observation, condoned the delay in the presentation of the appeals.

2. Classification of Goods as Handicrafts for Export:
The primary issue was whether the goods described by the appellants as handicrafts could be allowed for export. The appellants had filed shipping bills for the export of sandalwood handicrafts, which were initially disallowed by the lower authority on the grounds that the goods had superficial engravings and did not meet the criteria for handicrafts under Item 33(i) of Part A of the Import and Export Policy for AM 1985-88. The appellants argued that the goods were indeed handicrafts as they had obtained the necessary certificate from the Deputy Director (Handicrafts), which stated that the value addition was a minimum of 200% of the average base price of sandalwood.

3. Compliance with the Import and Export Policy for Handicrafts Made of Sandalwood:
The Tribunal examined whether the goods met the criteria for handicrafts under the Import and Export Policy 1985-88. The policy required a certificate from the Regional Officer of the All India Handicrafts Board confirming a minimum of 200% value addition. The appellants had submitted such a certificate, which was not questioned by the lower authority. The Tribunal noted that the goods were inspected jointly by the Assistant Collector and the Deputy Director, who certified them as sandalwood carvings (handicrafts). However, the authorities sought further opinion from the Regional Director, who acknowledged the goods as hand-crafted but criticized the superficial nature of the carvings.

4. Validity and Acceptance of Certificates Issued by Authorities:
The Tribunal observed that the certificate issued by the Deputy Director was not contested for its genuineness or the value addition it certified. The Regional Director's opinion, while noting the superficial nature of the carvings, did not negate the artistic or decorative value of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the policy's definition of handicrafts required the goods to have some artistic or decorative value, which the Deputy Director's certificate confirmed. The Tribunal criticized the lower authority's refusal to allow the appellants to bring in expert opinions from carvers and artists, stating that this approach was not conducive to a fair decision-making process.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. It held that the goods met the criteria for handicrafts under the Import and Export Policy, considering the value addition certified by the Deputy Director and the artistic value acknowledged by both the Deputy Director and the Regional Director. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.