9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (8) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Company Ltd. In the year 1974 the petitioner Company imported 50 futs of Brandy concentrate and before that consignment was shipped by the French suppliers, a certificate of Analysis was obtained from the French Customs. In April, 1974 bill of entry was filed in respect of the consignment and the Customs Authorities detained the consignment and examined the samples. The Appraiser of the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on August 1, 1974 to explain why goods unauthorisedly imported should not be confiscated under the provisions of Section 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Import Control Order No. 17/55 da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders passed by the three authorities below are entirely unsustainable as on the established facts it is impossible to suggest that the goods imported were not brandy concentrate. The learned counsel also urged that the revisional authority ignored the earlier order dated May 5, 1981 passed by the Government and where an identical question came for decision and the claim of the petitioner was accepted. The submission of the learned counsel on both counts deserves acceptance. The contention that Shri Ishwaran, Secretary to the Government of India, was wrong in brushing aside the earlier order dated May 5, 1981 passed by the Central Government in exercise of revisional powers in the case of the petitioner and in respect of the import of id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be sustained. Shri Talyarkhan submits, and in my judgment with considerable merit, that the facts of the present case are identical and the reasons given by the Secretary for ignoring the earlier decision is unsustainable. The Secretary tried to distinguish the earlier decision on the ground that the proceedings in the earlier case were drawn under Section 130 of the Customs Act, and therefore, in such proceedings the onus to prove that the goods were prohibited were on the Department, while in the present case the onus is heavily on the petitioner. The distinction tried to be suggested by the revisional authority is really a non-existing one. It is unfortunate that the revisional authority should have ignored the earlier decisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining alcohol in ranges above 100%. Even if a drop of such concentrate is consumed, the throat and the body of the person would be burnt down. The revisional authority instead of taking a practical view of the matter, proceeded to take into consideration imaginary factors by observing that the expression 'brandy concentrate' is not defined and therefore the explanatory note under Heading 22.09 of the Brussel's Tariff Nomenclature should be imported as aid to determine the ticklish questions of classification. The order of the revisional authority is clearly erroneous as it is now well settled that the reliance on the Brussel's Tariff Nomenclature for classifying the goods is not permissible. The revisional authority also held that the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
