9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (12) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trol) Act, 1947, levying a redemption fine of Rs. 4.8 lakhs on the consignments covered by two Bills of Entry. 2. The appellants imported what they declared as Artificial Fur Cloth and filed two Bills of Entry on 11-11-1987 and 27-10-1987. Under the first Bill of Entry the c.i.f. value of the goods was Rs. 96,439; under the second Bill of Entry Rs. 87,911. They claimed clearance of the goods against two REP Licences which were issued under export product Item D 2.2.(i) for light categories of travel and other leather goods like attache cases, brief cases, ladies handbags, wallets, purses, leather hand gloves etc., and another under Item D 2.2.(ii) against export of leather garments. The materials permitted for import under Appendix 17 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted for import under Col. 4 or Col. 5 of Appendix 17. Since Velvet imported was not so specifically mentioned, the Customs House view was that the licences produced were not valid to cover the import. Proceedings were, therefore, initiated against the appellants and after considering the reply to the Show Cause Notice, the Collector ordered confiscation of the goods, levying a redemption fine as in the impugned order against which the present appeal has been filed. 3. Shri Thiagarajan, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the Custom House Laboratory itself was not in a position to ascertain that what was imported was not Artificial Fur Cloth. The learned Counsel further assailed the Collector s reliance upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration factors which the officer has no right to take into account is no determination. The learned Counsel also drew our attention to the observation of the Collector in the order that artificial fur cloth should resemble natural fur and in this context, the learned Counsel submitted that the material submitted to the Collector to show that the goods resemble natural fur as contained in the letter dated 28-3-1988 of K.K. Radhakrishnan, Assistant Professor, Victoria Jubilee Technical Institute, Bombay, has not been taken into consideration. This letter would show that about 60% of the material resemble natural fur. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that there should be a reconsideration of the issue by the Collector and such directio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen that Dr. Subramaniam has given his opinion as follows : I have examined the samples and found that they are velvet fabrics and do not belong to the category of artificial fur clothes. Artificial fur clothes do not have any weave structure unlike velvets. The samples clearly show the weave structure. Therefore, it is seen that the opinion is given, after examining the samples from the import consignments sent to him. He has given the opinion based on the criteria of weave structure. If the appellants were not satisfied with the opinion given, or if they had any doubt about the basis, it was upto them to have asked for a cross examination of the Expert to elicit from him the basis and the reasoning for giving the opinion as he had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25(1) of the Policy 1985-88 under the heading Clarification and Interpretation of the Policy. It is stated therein that enquiries regarding interpretation of policy and procedure should be addressed to C.C.I.E., New Delhi and that any interpretation of the Import Policy given in any other manner or by any other person will not be binding on the C.C.I.E or in law. In sub-para 2 thereof, it is further stated, Notwithstanding what has been stated in sub-para (1) above any interpretation of Import-Export Policy or procedure given by CCIE, New Delhi, will prevail over any other clarification in the same matter given by any other authority or person. Further in para 27(2) it has been laid down, As in the matters relating to Import-Expor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle parts which their licence authorised them to import. The Customs authorities held on examination of the goods that they constituted sets of complete motorcycle in knocked down condition and the case was adjudicated. The Supreme Court in this context made the observation that the decision or order passed under the Act should not take into consideration the factors which the decision making officer has no right to take into account. The situation in the present appeal is that the Collector already had expert opinion. He refers to the technical literature also on the subject and mentions the pile length for a distinction. Further, in this case as we have seen the licensing authorities themselves had opined that the licences produced would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
