1995 (10) TMI 111 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of expert opinions on the nature of imported goods.
2. Determination of whether imported goods were second-hand or new.
3. Assessment of penalty and fine on importers based on expert opinions.

Analysis:
The case involves an appeal against an Order-in-original passed by the Collector of Customs, Panaji, Goa regarding the importation of FRP moulds for the construction of vessels for the Indian Coast Guard. The Collector directed the importers to produce authorization from the Ministry of Defence/Coast Guard and surrender the moulds after construction. The Central Board of Excise & Customs reviewed the order and directed the Collector to file an appeal for a correct determination. The Board noted conflicting expert opinions by Shri Dandekar and Tata Tea Ltd., with Dandekar deeming the moulds second-hand and Tata Tea Ltd. considering them new. The Board found the Collector's order incorrect for not classifying the moulds as second-hand and confiscating them. The Revenue argued for imposing penalties based on Dandekar's report.

The importer's advocate contended that Dandekar's report was biased due to personal issues and that various documents supported the moulds being new. The supplier's certificate stated the moulds were designed and fabricated for the importer, and insurance documents labeled them as new. The advocate supported the Collector's decision and the surrender of moulds to the Coast Guard post-construction. Upon review, the Tribunal found no flaws in the Collector's order. The importers had ordered the moulds as per their design, which were fabricated accordingly. While an initial error in declaring the moulds as second-hand was corrected, the report by Tata Tea Ltd., supported by insurance documentation, confirmed the moulds as new. The Tribunal deemed Tata Tea Ltd.'s opinion more reliable, citing the detailed journey of the moulds and minor damages incurred during transportation. In contrast, Dandekar's opinion was considered conjectural with no substantial evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Collector's decision, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and confirming the original order.