1995 (2) TMI 240 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods in Bill of Entry, Confiscation under Customs Act, Benefit of Notification 203/92

Misdeclaration of goods in Bill of Entry:
The case involved the importation of goods described as cardboard type R/2 GSM 210 under an advanced license. The Collector held that the goods were misdeclared as cardboard when they were actually white coated board identifiable as art boards. The Appellants argued that the goods were cleared correctly as per the settled definition of cardboard. They cited the judgment in the matter of Collector of Customs v. Kamal Traders to support their position. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants, stating that the goods were correctly declared as art boards and not subject to misdeclaration. Therefore, the imposition of a penalty and fine was deemed unwarranted, and the same was set aside.

Confiscation under Customs Act:
The Collector invoked Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, for misdeclaration of goods, leading to confiscation under the Act. The Appellants contended that misdeclaration did not apply as per the Kamal Traders judgment. The Tribunal upheld the Appellants' argument, ruling that there was no misdeclaration, and hence, confiscation and penalties were not justified.

Benefit of Notification 203/92:
The Appellants were denied the benefit of Notification 203/92, which applied to goods imported under advance licenses if usable in export products. The Collector based this denial on a market inquiry not disclosed to the Appellants. The Appellants argued that the wording of the Notification was broad and usability, not actual use, was sufficient. They also highlighted a minor difference in coating between the imported and exported goods. The Tribunal found merit in the Appellants' argument, noting a violation of natural justice due to the undisclosed market inquiry. It held that the matter required a remand to determine the applicability of the Notification to the goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellants on all issues. It held that there was no misdeclaration of goods, leading to the setting aside of penalties and fines. The matter of extending the benefit of Notification 203/92 was deemed to require a remand due to the violation of natural justice and the need to determine the goods' classification. The question of penalties and fines was not to be kept open during the remand proceedings, as the findings regarding the nature of the imported goods had not been challenged by the Revenue. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.