Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai vs M/S. Durga Toy Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. on 29 May, 2001
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
1. This appeal has arisen from Order-in-Appeal No. C:CUS:701/97 dt. 21.7.1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) holding that the imported battery operated toy of parrot incorporating motor is more specifically classifiable under Sub Heading ITC 950380.01 which is more specific than the general Heading classifiable under Heading 950341.00 to 9503491.01.
2. Appearing for the Revenue the Ld. DR submits that the order has been passed without giving any reasons and it is not a speaking order. He further points out that the Additional Commissioner, in his order in original has gone step by step to eliminate the entries and come to the appropriate entry which requires a specific licence and not SIL produced by the Importer in terms of the ITC. Policy. Hence he prays for remanding the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Appearing for the Respondents the Ld. Counsel files the written submission and also copy of the extract of ITC classification and contends that although the Commissioner has not given detailed reasoning, yet the conclusion arrived at is totally justified and correct. He points out to ITC Heading 950380.51 which applies to "other toys and Models incorporating motor" which is restricted item and for that the Importer is permitted to import against a Special Import Licence. He contends that the importer has produced SIL and therefore the Commissioner classifying the item under this Heading is most specific and correct. He points out to all other heading and submits that they are not appropriate and the item does not fall under those headings.
4. While countering the arguments the Ld. SDR against reiterates his submission and contends that the Commissioner ought to have taken all these pleas and given his considered opinion in the matter.
5. We have heard both the side. After a careful consideration of the submissions, we agree with the Ld. SDR that the impugned order is not a speaking order. The Ld. Commissioner straight away coming to the Heading of ITC to hold it as specific without giving any reasons to reject all other headings. The order in original deals in detail on each of the Headings. Although, the Ld. Counsel has filed detailed written submissions and has attempted to show that the classified heading is appropriate one and SIL has been produced however we are of the considered opinion, that as the Commissioner has not issued a speaking order, the matter has to go back to the Commissioner (appeals) for de novo consideration. The Commissioner (Appeals) shall take up the matter afresh and reconsider in the light of the submissions that would be placed before him by the Importer and if the heading is specific one as claimed by them then the requirement of SIL be considered.
6. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo consideration with a direction to decide the matter after following the principles of natural justice. As the issue is an old one, the Ld. Commissioner shall dispose of the matter expeditiously within three months from the receipt of this order.
(order dictated and pronounced in the open court)