1997 (5) TMI 251 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Import of acrylic plastic scrap under OGL without a specific license.

Analysis:
The case involved two appeals arising from the same order regarding the import of a product described as acrylic plastic scrap under OGL. The Department contended that a specific license was required for the import, leading to confiscation of the goods and imposition of fines and penalties by the Additional Collector. The appellants argued that the import of scrap was covered by para 27 of the Hand Book of Procedures and did not require a license. The ld. Collector (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine but upheld the penalty. The appellants contended that the lower authorities misinterpreted the issue and failed to distinguish between waste and scrap, citing relevant case law. They argued that since scrap import was allowed without a license, the confiscation and penalties were unwarranted.

The respondent Commissioner argued that the import policy did not permit scrap import without a license, especially after a certain date, and emphasized the administrative instructions over the Hand Book of Procedures. The respondent justified the actions of the lower authorities based on the import date and relevant restrictions. The Tribunal noted that scrap import without a license was permitted before a specific date and that the restriction came into effect later. The crucial issue was whether the imported goods required a specific license. The Tribunal analyzed para 27, distinguishing between waste and scrap as two distinct terms, supported by the decision in Hemani Industries v. Commissioner of Customs. The examination report confirmed the goods as crushed scrap, and the Department failed to provide evidence to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal concluded that since import of scrap without a license was permitted under para 27(1) of the Hand Book of Procedures, no license was required for acrylic plastic scrap import. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the appellants entitled to consequential relief as per the law.