2000 (8) TMI 764 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods.
2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of personal penalty.
3. Principles of natural justice.
4. Definition and classification of Velvet Fabric.
5. Release of goods under specific conditions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Mis-declaration of Imported Goods:
The appellants declared the imported goods as Velvet Fabric, while the Customs authorities identified them as Polyester based Nylon Flocked Fabric. The Commissioner of Customs concluded that the goods were mis-declared, leading to their confiscation and a personal penalty on the appellants.

2. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Personal Penalty:
The Commissioner of Customs absolutely confiscated 160 cartons of fabric valued at Rs. 27,93,584.65 and imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants challenged the confiscation and penalty, arguing that the goods were indeed Velvet Fabric as per trade parlance and technical definitions.

3. Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants initially argued a violation of the principles of natural justice but chose not to press this point, stating that the issue was covered by another order of the Commissioner on a similar matter, which had become final.

4. Definition and Classification of Velvet Fabric:
The appellants contended that Velvet Fabric can be produced by three methods: warp-pile method, tufting process, and flocking method. They argued that irrespective of the method, the end product is recognized as Velvet in the market. They supported their claim with references to various technical books on textiles and an earlier order by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta, which recognized similar goods as Velvet Fabric.

5. Release of Goods Under Specific Conditions:
The Tribunal considered the appellants' reliance on technical definitions and the trade parlance test. It was noted that the Commissioner in a previous case had acknowledged that goods known in trade as Velvet should be classified as such, regardless of the manufacturing process. The Tribunal concluded that the 72 cartons covered by Advance Licences should be released unconditionally. For the remaining 88 cartons, the Tribunal allowed clearance on payment of duty and upon the appellants providing an undertaking that the goods would be used as outer covering in the manufacture of upholstered furniture, in accordance with ITC Notification No. 52/(RE)/92-97, dated 15-2-1995.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the confiscation of the 72 cartons imported against Advance Licences and allowed their release. The remaining 88 cartons were allowed clearance on payment of duty and upon the appellants' undertaking regarding their use. The personal penalty imposed on the appellants was also set aside.