Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Jagatjit Industries Limited vs Commissioner Of C. Ex. on 22 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(102)ELT746(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants imported Polyrome Bonificateur (Essential Oils) and claimed classification under Heading 3301.19. They sought clearance of the goods under OGL in terms of Para-22 of the Export and Import Policy. The invoice indicated classification under HSN Code No. 3302.10 which corresponded with Sub-heading 3302.90 of the ITC. Since the goods were not essential oil of citrus fruit but mixtures of odoriferous substances and since the import of such goods was not eligible under the OGL, a show cause notice was issued alleging liability of goods to confiscation for lack of authorisation and also for misdeclaration. The Collector in his impugned order, apart from the invoice also relied upon the Data-sheet supplied by the suppliers which showed that the imported substance was a mixture of several oils such as cinnamon, winter green and clove etc. He held that the goods were liable to confiscation and prescribed a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and further imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The present appeal arises out of this order. Shri L.P. Asthana, learned Advocate arguing for the appellants claimed that the declaration was made by the importers under the bona fide belief that the goods were classifiable under Heading 33.01 and they were eligible for clearance under OGL. His further claim was that the importers being actual users there was no reason for prescribing from high redemption fine.
2. We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.
3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions made by both sides.
4. The invoice which was in the hands of the importers itself had shown classification of the subject goods under Sub-heading 3302.00. Even then in the Bill of Entry the importers claimed classification under Heading 3301 (sic). The order of the Collector ordering confiscation of the goods on the ground of misdeclaration cannot therefore be faulted. Since the Data-sheet showed that the goods were mixture of several oils, the goods did not qualify for clearance without a valid licence and on this ground the orders of confiscation under Section 111(d) are also required to be upheld. In view of the fact that the confiscation of the goods for misdeclaration has been sustained by us, we find no reason to set aside or even allow a remission from the quantum of penalty. We have, however, considered carefully the plea of the learned Advocate that the importers were actual users and on this count a high quantum of fine was not warranted. We find this sentiment reflected in three judgments of this Tribunal namely;
1. Radio Vision Company v. C.C. Bombay. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 669 (Tribunal)
2. Indian Communications Network Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi -1994 (74) E.L.T. 948 (Tribunal)
3. Indian Sugar & General Engg. Corpn. v. Collector of Customs, Nhava Sheva -1995 (77) E.L.T. 907 (Tribunal).
In all these cases the Tribunal has seen it fit to reduce the quantum of fine on the observation that the importers were actual users. We accordingly reduce the fine from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 15 lakhs. Subject to this notification the appeal is rejected.