1995 (7) TMI 186 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty
2. Confiscation of goods for mis-description and export obligations fulfillment against DEEC book
3. Compliance with specifications and characteristics of goods ordered
4. Prohibition of goods under Customs Act and liability for confiscation

Analysis:

Issue 1: Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty
The appellants sought dispensation of the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 25,000 levied in the impugned order. The appeal was taken up for hearing without pre-deposit with the consent of both parties due to the issue being of short compass.

Issue 2: Confiscation of goods for mis-description and export obligations fulfillment against DEEC book
The dispute revolved around whether the goods described as waste and scrap, referred to as strips by the appellants, were liable for confiscation due to mis-description. The appellants argued that the goods were intended for insulation purposes and were supplied as per the order received from Dubai, meeting the required characteristics. The authorities alleged mis-description, leading to confiscation under Section 113 of the Customs Act. However, the Tribunal found that the goods were accepted by the buyer, fulfilled the order specifications, and were not dutiable or prohibited, thus ruling in favor of the appellants.

Issue 3: Compliance with specifications and characteristics of goods ordered
The appellants contended that the goods supplied were in compliance with the order specifications, which required assorted sizes conforming to specific characteristics like insulation properties, hardness, and chemical resistance. The Tribunal noted that the authorities failed to examine whether the goods met the order requirements and were usable for the intended purpose, focusing solely on the description discrepancy. As the goods were accepted by the buyer and fulfilled the order terms, the Tribunal held that the charge of mis-declaration was not proven.

Issue 4: Prohibition of goods under Customs Act and liability for confiscation
The authorities argued that the goods were prohibited under Section 50 for not providing a true declaration in the shipping bill, leading to confiscation under Section 113. However, the appellants contended that the export of rubber scrap material was not prohibited, and the goods were exported as per the order, complying with the conditions. The Tribunal found that the export was permitted, the goods were accepted by the buyer, and no evidence of deliberate mis-declaration was presented, leading to the appeal being allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants were not liable for confiscation or penalty under the Customs Act due to the goods being exported as per the order specifications and accepted by the buyer, thus granting them the benefit of doubt and endorsing the fulfillment of export obligations against the DEEC book.