9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -84 Policy excluding items figuring in Appendix 26 of the relevant policy. In the case of Bill of Entry IGM No. 2748 Item No. 312 and Bill of Entry IGM No. 2866 Item No. 28, goods were released on a test-cum-ITC Bond. The claim of the appellants was that the goods were assessable under Heading 27.10(9) of the Custom Tariff Schedule 1975 as Hydrocarbon Oil which has its flashing point at or about 93.3o Centigrade and is ordinarily used for batching of jute or other fibres. Samples were drawn for test and pending receipt of the test report the goods were provisionally assessed under residuary sub-heading 27.10(1). In so far as the goods covered by the Bill of Entry IGM No. 403 Item No. 42 and Bill of Entry IGM No. 607 Item No. 21, the claims of the appellants were similar, that is, the goods were Paraffinic Rubber Plasticizers assessable under Heading 27.10(9) of the Tariff Schedule and eligible for clearances under the licences against entry No. 254 of Appendix 5 of AM 83-84 ITC Policy. The samples drawn from these consignments were reported by the Deputy Chief Chemist to have characteristics of liquid paraffin, free from any added ingredients, but of non-pharmacopoeial grade. Liqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ences produced. In this connection he placed reliance on para 203 of the Policy also. He further held that the goods were assessable as White Oil. He also held that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. Since they were, however, not available for confiscation, having been released on Test-cum-ITC Bond, he ordered that the terms of the Bonds shall be enforced to the extent indicated in the order aggregating to Rs. 28,96,849.00. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act. It is this order which is now challenged in this appeal. 3. We have heard Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy, Consultant, for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, D.R., for the respondent Collector. 4. When the matter came up before the Bench on 1-6-1988, the appellants had moved an application with the following prayers : (a) a direction may be issued to refer the manufacturer s literature containing specifications of the products and recommended end uses to the Chief Chemist for consideration and categorical opinion as to whether the goods imported were Paraffinic Rubber Plasticizers or not; and (b) the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Chief Chemist has been functioning as Chief Chemist whose post has been vacant). This opinion has been given after examining the literature on the product. The relevant portion of this opinion reads as follows : However, the particulars furnished under each of the three products, include the physical properties like appearance, specific gravity, viscosity, flash point and Aniline point and the intended end uses specifying the types of polymers for which it will be suitable. These are the details given against the paraffin oils of various grades in the book Rubber World Blue Book" 1981 Edition under the category of plasticizers and softeners. The numerical suffix 350 is indicative of the viscosity of the product. In broad details, these are comparable with those given in the Blue Book for paraffinic oils used as plasticizers and softeners. 7. During the hearing before us, Shri Sundar Rajan, for the Department, clarified that in view of the latest opinion of the Chief Chemist, the Department would proceed on the basis that the subject goods are Paraffinic Rubber Plasticizers. However, he submitted that since there was no difference in duty as between Heading 27.10(1) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... theless White Oil falling in Appendix 9 Item 24. If they are White Oil, it would follow that they can be imported only by the Indian Oil Corporation as stated in Appendix 9 and the additional licence produced for their clearances would not be valid to cover their importation. However, we are not satisfied that the goods are White Oil. It must be noted in this connection that the Chief Chemist s earlier opinion of 25-5-1987 was given in the absence of the manufacturer s literature setting out the product description and specifications. In that opinion, he had stated that White Oil was a generic name used to denote the general category of refined petroleum oils which could include Liquid Paraffin also and that liquid paraffin other than pharmacopoeial grade was not known to exist. He had further stated that paraffinic oils were known to be used as plasticizers in rubber industry. It was because non-pharmacopoeial grade liquid paraffin was not known that he had concluded on the basis of available information that the goods were White Oil . The Chief Chemist was unable, for lack of evidence, to identify the goods as rubber plasticizers. When, however, the data produced by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
