9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of goods for purposes of assessment. The appeals are at the instance of the revenue authorities, namely, the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The respondent No. 1/importer is a company of small scale sector in Punjab and manufactures various kinds of yarns. It is stated that on 19th May, 1984, the respondent No. 1 imported consignment of wool materials valued at Rs. 3,75,079/- and claimed the benefits under Notification No. 240/76-Cus. The respondent also claimed that the wool materials were wool waste, hence, the goods in question were not liable to customs duty. It is stated that on 6th November, 1984, an Expert Committee, comprised of Deputy Chief Chemist, Assistant Collector and Senior Scientific Officer was set up for the examination of the goods in question. The Expert Committee after examination opined that the wool goods were other than wool waste, hence, the goods were liable to duty of customs. On or about 2nd January, 198.5, the department issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why action under Sections 111 (d) (m) and Section 112 of the Customs Act and Section 3 of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1942 should not be taken a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... + auxiliary duty at 10% + additional duty of customs at Rs. 9.375 per kg. under Item No. 43 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule read with the relevant notification. As mentioned hereinbefore adjudication proceedings were held by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay. In the said adjudication proceedings the members of the technical panel were cross-examined by counsel. The Additional Collector held that the goods were not wool waste but processed woolen products other than wool tops/raw wool and were classifiable under Heading 53.01/05(1). In other words, he found that since the goods were found to be not wool wastes, the licences produced for wool waste were not acceptable and, therefore, the imports were unauthorised. Accordingly, the confiscation of the goods were ordered but option to redeem the goods on payment of fine was permitted. This order as mentioned hereinbefore was challenged before the CEGAT. 3. The Tribunal noted the history of the case and addressed itself to the points at issue. The question before the Tribunal was whether the goods were wool waste or processed woolen products other than wool tops/raw wool. The revenue's case was that the goods could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g from 250 to 1166 metres. But in the present case, the material was about 4 metres only. Some reliance was also placed on two letters to L.W.S. from the Principal Scientific Officer, Punjab Test House, Ludhiana, regarding the definition of wool tops and soft waste which was set out in the order of the Tribunal. It is not necessary for our present purpose to set out the definition in extenso. But this definition of materials disproved the revenue's contention that pieces of sliver, as in this case, of 4 or 5 metres length were directly spinnable and were not wool wastes. There was cross-examination of the Deputy Chief Chemist and that cross-examination also does not support the revenue's case. It is true that the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay by his order dated 19th March, 1986 had rejected the defence put forth by the dealer and held that the goods were not wool wastes but were "processed woolen products other than wool tops/raw wool" and were classifiable under heading 53.01/05(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule. But the question is whether he was right in so doing. It appears that the goods varied in length from 4 metres and above. It also appears that the goods were fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions into consideration, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that these are classed as "wool waste". The propriety and the validity of this finding is under challenge. 7. The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has ignored vital material and relevant factors. He submitted that Technical Committee's report about the expression "wool waste", CCCN's observations and the Board's Tariff Advice had been ignored. We are unable to accept this criticism advanced on behalf of the revenue. 8. The short question involved before the Tribunal and the validity of which is under challenge in these appeals is, whether the goods in question are wool wastes. If these are then these are entitled to exemption under the relevant notification and if these are not wool wastes, these are not entitled to exemption. 9. The expression "wool wastes" is not defined in the relevant Act or in the notification. This expression is not an expression of art. It may be understood as in most of financial measures where the expressions are not defined not in a technical or preconceived basis but on the basis of trade understanding of those who deal with these goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
