1994 (9) TMI 195 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the term "synthetic yarn" under Notification No. 12/69-Cus.
Classification of Viscose Rayon Yarn under Chapter IV-A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay involved the interpretation of the term "synthetic yarn" under Notification No. 12/69-Cus. The case originated from the seizure of 24 cartons of 100% Viscose Rayon Yarn made in Taiwan, which were believed to be liable for confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original, stating that Viscose Rayon Filament Yarn did not fall under the category of synthetic yarn as specified in Chapter IV-A of the Act. The Appellant argued that the popular meaning of "synthetic yarn" should be considered, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. However, the Respondent contended that the term should be interpreted strictly based on the specific notification, which did not include "man-made yarn" or "artificial yarn."

The Tribunal noted that the notification specified "synthetic yarn and metallised yarn" without mentioning "man-made yarn" or "artificial yarn." It was undisputed that the seized goods were Viscose Rayon Yarn, falling under the category of cellulosic yarn, distinct from synthetic yarn classified as non-cellulosic. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "synthetic yarn" did not encompass all types of man-made fibers, as it specifically referred to one category of man-made fibers. The argument that the term should be broadly interpreted was rejected, considering the distinction between synthetic yarn and metallic yarn, both separately mentioned in the notification.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)'s decision, stating that Viscose Rayon Yarn did not qualify as synthetic yarn under the notification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict construction when specific prohibitions are outlined and noted that Viscose Rayon Yarn was not assessed as synthetic yarn under the Customs Tariff. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the Collector (Appeals)'s decision.