9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Entry No. 279(A) of ITC Policy AM 1990-93. 2. Burden of proof on the appellants to establish the nature of imported goods. 3. Interpretation of the term "polymer lead" and its applicability in this case. 4. Failure of lower authority to consider expert opinions and technical literature. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the confiscation of goods (polymer lead) under Entry No. 279(A) of ITC Policy AM 1990-93 by the Collector of Customs, Madras. The appellants produced two REP licenses for import, but the goods were confiscated as they failed to prove the imported goods matched the description of polymer lead allowed for import under the policy. The Central Revenue Laboratory's report indicated the goods were mainly artificial graphite with some inorganic additive, raising doubts about the material's origin. The burden of proof was placed on the appellants, who provided literature from suppliers and Staedtler to support their claim. 2. The appellants argued that the goods matched the description of polymer leads used in mechanical pencils, citing Staedtler's literature on Hi-polymer fineline leads. They contended that the Deputy Chief Chemist's note supported the use of polymerization in lead pencil production, questioning the lower authority's reliance on presumptions and lack of expert opinions. Despite multiple hearings to gather technical literature or expert opinions, the Department failed to provide substantial evidence, while the appellants presented an opinion from a Chemistry Professor supporting the term "polymer lead." 3. The Tribunal analyzed the term "polymer lead" under Entry No. 279(A) and the goods declared as "lead polymer" in the invoice. The Dy. Chief Chemist's report did not definitively exclude the goods from being considered polymer lead, noting the predominance of polymer content in Staedtler's product. The Tribunal emphasized the need to understand the scope of the term and the statutory authority's intent in allowing such imports. It criticized the lower authority for not seeking expert opinions or conducting market inquiries, leading to a lack of clarity on the definition of polymer lead. 4. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authority's decision was flawed and remanded the matter for reconsideration. It highlighted the importance of expert opinions, specifically directing the Departmental Chemical Examiner to review the Chemistry Professor's opinion for clarification. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a comprehensive evaluation based on all relevant evidence and expert insights to determine whether the imported goods qualified as "polymer lead." The appeal was allowed for a de novo consideration by the lower authority in light of the observations made.
|
