1998 (6) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Import of used old garments and synthetic/woollen rags without conforming to specified norms.
2. Confiscation order upheld but redemption fine and personal penalty reduced.
3. Dispute over legal correctness of reducing fine and penalty amounts.
4. Request for remutilation before customs clearance refused due to absence of rules under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. Comparison of redemption fine and penalty imposed with normal practices of other Custom Houses.
6. Interpretation of law regarding the classification of garments as rags and benefit of doubt to the importer.

Issue 1: Import of used old garments and synthetic/woollen rags without conforming to specified norms:
The case involved the import of used old garments and synthetic/woollen rags by two companies. The used old garments required a specific license for import, while the synthetic rags needed to conform to mutilation norms specified in a Public Notice. Allegations were made that the synthetic rags did not meet the specified requirements, leading to the imports being treated as 'restricted'.

Issue 2: Confiscation order upheld but redemption fine and personal penalty reduced:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation order in both cases but reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty significantly for the two companies involved. The fine and penalty amounts were lowered from the original orders issued by the lower authorities.

Issue 3: Dispute over legal correctness of reducing fine and penalty amounts:
The Revenue contended that the reduction in fine and penalty amounts by the Commissioner (Appeals) was not legally correct. They sought the restoration of the original orders issued by the lower authorities.

Issue 4: Request for remutilation before customs clearance refused due to absence of rules under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The respondents argued that their request for remutilation before customs clearance was denied by the original authority citing the absence of rules under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962. They claimed that the denial was not in line with the law.

Issue 5: Comparison of redemption fine and penalty imposed with normal practices of other Custom Houses:
The respondents compared the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed in their case with the normal practices of other Custom Houses. They cited an order from the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay Custom House, where a worse case resulted in a lower redemption fine and penalty. The respondents argued that the impugned order-in-appeal had only scaled down the fine and penalty within reasonable ranges.

Issue 6: Interpretation of law regarding the classification of garments as rags and benefit of doubt to the importer:
The judgment referred to previous cases where it was established that garments cut into rags should be considered as such, benefiting the importer. The Tribunal held that in the absence of a clear definition, the doubt should favor the importer. The impugned order-in-appeal was deemed to align with the interests of justice, dismissing the appeals of the Revenue.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the various issues addressed and the reasoning behind the decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS.