1995 (11) TMI 150 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Discrepancy in sizes of imported and exported zip fasteners.
2. Non-mention of the quantity of artificial furlining in the shipping bills.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Discrepancy in Sizes of Imported and Exported Zip Fasteners:

The central dispute in the appeals was the mismatch between the sizes of zip fasteners imported under Advance Licences (DEEC) and those used in exports. The relevant Import Policy period was 1990-93, specifically under the provisions of Para 238(1) of the Policy.

The Tribunal referenced DEEC Circular No. 3/DEEC/91, dated 25-3-1991, which states that the total length of zips imported should tally with the total length exported, and the size-to-size co-relationship is relaxed for imports under Advance Licences issued under the Production Programme. This circular allows for a 2% wastage and clarifies that sizes imported need not match the sizes exported, provided the total length of zips imported, after allowing for wastage, is accounted for by exports.

Appeal No. C/3109/90-NB:
The Collector of Customs accepted the discharge of export obligations only for 60,000 pieces of 32 cm zips imported and exported, rejecting the remaining 1,40,000 pieces of 31 cm zips. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reconsider the appeal based on the DEEC Circular, which permits different sizes of zips imported and exported, as long as the total length matches.

Appeal No. C/44/91-NB:
The Ministry's circular was not issued when the Collector passed the order. The Tribunal noted that the circular applies to pending cases and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the appeal. The total length of zips imported was 1,31,20,000 cm, and the net quantity available after wastage was 1,28,57,600 cm. The total length exported was 1,23,72,416 cm, with a shortfall of 4,85,184 cm, which could be adjusted against excess exports in other cases.

Appeal No. C/51/92-NB:
The Additional Collector referenced the circular but miscalculated the total length of zips imported and exported. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reconsider the appeal, noting an excess export of 9,30,352 cm.

Appeal No. C/52/92-NB:
The Additional Collector misinterpreted the export contract date and ignored the circular's provisions. The Tribunal noted a shortfall of 3,13,816 cm, which could be adjusted against excess exports and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the appeal.

Appeal No. C/53/92-NB:
The Additional Collector incorrectly concluded that the circular did not apply, demanding duty on the entire import of zip fasteners. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reconsider the appeal, emphasizing that the total length of zips imported, subject to 2% wastage, should cover the total length exported.

2. Non-Mention of the Quantity of Artificial Furlining in the Shipping Bills:

In the last appeal (C/53/92-NB), there was an additional dispute regarding the non-mention of the quantity of artificial furlining used in the leather footwear uppers exported. The Additional Collector demanded customs duty on the entire import of furlining, ignoring the exporter's declaration of its use in the shipping bills. The Tribunal noted that the quantity of furlining required per pair of leather boot uppers is 1/2 sq. meter, and for 30,000 pairs exported, 15,000 sq. meters of furlining was required. The Tribunal accepted this quantity and directed the Commissioner to reconsider the appeal.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the five appeals for de novo adjudication to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi, in light of the above observations.

← Previous Next →