1997 (11) TMI 260 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, redemption fine, penalty imposition, classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading 7209.90, dispute over the nature of imported goods (Tin Mill Black Plate vs. Tin Free Steel), reliance on test reports from Chief Chemist and Deputy Chief Chemist, failure to send sample for further confirmation, appeal for resampling and retesting, unjust enrichment.

In this case, the appellant appealed against an order-in-original by the Additional Collector, Customs, Bombay, which found misdeclaration of goods and ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty. The appellant imported Tin Mill Black Plate (TMBP) uncoated, claiming classification under Customs Tariff Heading 7209.90. A sample was taken and sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist, who suggested the possibility of the goods being Tin Free Steel (TFS). The appellant requested retesting and resampling before a personal hearing. The Deputy Chief Chemist's report did not definitively confirm the nature of the goods as TFS and advised sending the sample to the Chief Chemist or another institute for further confirmation.

The dispute centered around the nature of the imported goods, with the Deputy Chief Chemist's report indicating the potential presence of chromium, suggesting the goods could be TFS but lacking definitive confirmation. The appellant argued for retesting and resampling, emphasizing the lack of a clear finding in the Deputy Chief Chemist's report. The Tribunal noted that the Deputy Chief Chemist did not provide a conclusive opinion and recommended further testing at specialized laboratories, which the respondent did not pursue.

The Tribunal found the order based on the Deputy Chief Chemist's report unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal. The appellants were granted consequential relief, with reference to the principle of unjust enrichment as per a Supreme Court decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of conclusive testing and adherence to procedural requirements in determining the nature of imported goods, emphasizing the need for definitive confirmation before imposing penalties or confiscation based on test reports.