9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompletely premutilated synthetic rags as per invoice attached. The importers/appellants herein claimed their import under OGL as listed against S. No. 418, List 8, Part I, Appendix 6 of the relevant Import Policy for April 1985-March 1988. The said serial number at page 197 of the said Policy is reproduced below :- 418. Woollen rags/synthetic rags/shoddy wool in completely premutilated form only. Condition No. 37 (at page 168 of the said Policy) further governing the import of such rags under OGL is also reproduced below :- (37). (i) Import of/woollen rags/shoddy wool/synthetic rags will be allowed onJy when these are imported in completely pre-mutilated condition. (ii) Definition of woollen rags is as follows :- (a) New -wast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acie and similar goods were found in them." (Reverse of Bill of Entry). 4th appellant : .....The entire goods consist of synthetic rags cut into 2 or 3 pieces but the same were not in completely pre-mutilated condition." In view of the foregoing state of facts, the department contends that the goods do not satisfy Condition No. 37 of OGL of April 1985 March, 1988 Policy in asmuch as these are not completely pre-mutilated . 5. The appellants on the other hand contend that no standard of mutilation has been laid down in ITC Policy 1985-88 to indicate as to what is meant by the expression completely pre-mutilated. The department is going on its own pre-notion of the words completely premutilated as is apparent from the Customs P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate, appearing for the appellants has taken support from West Regional Bench Order No. 997-998/86-NRB, dt. 22.8.87 in the case of Subhash Woollen Mills v. C.C. Bombay which deals with the identical issue i.e. interpretation of the expression completely premutilated occurring in the ITC Policy 1985-88. According to this order of the W.R.B., since (i) the expression completely pre-mutilated in the ITC Policy is not defined, (ii) no evidence of standard of mutilation has been adduced by the department, (iii) the finding that mutilation is not proper is vague, (iv) the appellants are actual users and (v) the appellants therein requested the Collector to order release after mutilating to the satisfaction of Customs authorities, the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hout taking into account the fact that the appellants are actual-users duly registered with the Director of Industries and without any regard to the past practice. 11. Learned JDR, appearing for the department has re-iterated the findings of the adjudicating authorities. He has also pointed out that Condition No. 37 appearing in Appendix 6(OGL) in 1985-88 ITC Policy did not occur in earlier Policies. Therefore, the present Policy has to be interpreted on its own without considering the practice during earlier policy periods. 12. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced on behalf of all the appellants and those on behalf of the department. Condition No. 37 at page 168 - the subject of interpretation - in the current Policy 1985- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on strip and skelp are not the same it is absolutely necessary to define the word skelp so that there can be no doubt or confusion in the mind either of taxing authority or of the tax payer with regard to the tax liability qua skelp as opposed to strip". This principle squarely applies in the instant cases, 14. Factual examination reports, shorn of the expression of opinion of the examining officers, indicate that goods in the first two appellants cases are synthetic garments cut into 2,3,4 pieces or in two pieces wholly available. The fact that these are rags as declared in the Bills of Entry has not been disputed because there is neither an allegation nor a finding that the goods are not rags. The goods have been assessed as rag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In the instant cases, however, since the goods are not available, no further mutilation is possible. For that reason, however, the impugned orders cannot be sustained because confiscation cannot be justified on the basis of our finding of lack of identifiable test of complete mutilation. 19. Lastly, the finding of mis-declarationgiven by the Additional Collector in the case of the last two appellants on the ground that the goods were found to be pre-mutilated only and not completely pre-mutilated as declared in the Bills of Entry is not sustainable for the same reason i.e. lack of definite standard of mutilation in the Policy. 20. In view of the foregoing discussion, while setting aside the impugned orders, we allow all the four ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
