2000 (6) TMI 286 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) dated 31-1-1994.

Analysis:
1. The Department appealed against the Collector (Appeals) order setting aside the Order-in-Original for confiscation of dyes and chemicals imported by M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries in contravention of Import Control Restrictions and penalties imposed on the respondents. The Department sought to uphold the Order-in-Original and set aside the Order-in-Appeal.

2. The Show Cause Notice alleged that dyes imported by M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries were to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and penalties imposed under Section 112 for contravention of Import Export Policy. The Additional Collector found the import was in violation of the policy due to misuse of Import Export Pass Book. The Department claimed the goods were sought to be cleared duty-free in violation of relevant provisions. The Additional Commissioner concluded that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

3. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original, finding the allegation of license sale unproven. He noted that the redemption fine option allowed to M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries indicated no sale of the pass book, hence no contravention of relevant conditions. The Collector found no justification for confiscation as M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries remained the owner of the goods. The Collector emphasized lack of evidence to support the allegation of license sale and retracted statements, concluding no contravention of Customs Act sections.

4. The Department argued that confessional statements by appellants admitting to pass book sale were clear. Retractions were deemed invalid, and M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries was accused of trafficking in pass books, violating Import Export Policy.

5. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, agreeing with the Collector (Appeals) that the reasons for setting aside the Order-in-Original were legally sound. Emphasizing M/s. Feroz Carpet Industries' ownership of the goods and lack of corroborated evidence, the Tribunal concurred with the view that the Order-in-Original should be set aside. The appeals filed by the Department were rejected.