Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Customs vs Suchitra Industries on 13 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(71)ECC316, 2000(122)ELT252(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. The short point for determination in this Revenue Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. C. Cus. 1290/98, dated 23.12.1998 is whether the Textile Loop Fasteners valued at Rs. 64,995/- imported from Hongkong by the appellants is liable to confiscation in view of their being no specific import licence. Appellants vide their letter dated 24.03.1999 have requested for decision on merits. They submit that the shelf life of the Loop Fastener is limited and since the quality has already been deteriorated under the customs custody, it cannot be used by them any more. They have submitted that they are a SSI Unit and that this material is only used to manufacture baby nappies.
2. Therefore, the matter is being considered on the basis of records and the submissions made by Id. DR.
3. Ld. DR submits that as has been mentioned in the order-in-original dated 22.09.1998, the laboratory report of the Custom House was that "The sample is in the form of cut piece of knitted fabric having loops on one side. It is looped pile fabric composed entirely of man-made filament of polyester. It is warp knit fabric". He submits that as per ITC HS 60012200, any knitted or crocheted fabrics of manmade fabrics can only be imported against a SIL being a restricted item under the Policy. As no import licence was made available, therefore, the original authority had rightly confiscated the same and allowed on redemption which was not exercised by the present respondents. He submits that as against this, the order-in-appeal impugned has not considered the legal position indicated above but has merely set aside the Order-in-Original on the grounds of end-use of the item. He submits that the end-use of the item is not relevant to the ITC HS Policy and therefore the order impugned is erroneous in law.
4. I have carefully considered these submissions and records of the case. I find great force in Id. DR's submission that ITC HS noted above, does not prescribe any end-use criteria for import. Therefore, I cannot read into the ITC Policy more than what is stated therein. As against this, the order impugned has released the goods on the ground that earlier imports were allowed at Bangalore and also that the goods are to be used to manufacture baby's nappies. There is no detailed discussion on the classification of the goods with respect to the test report of the Custom House Laboratory. The order impugned is also silent on why the said report has been brushed aside. The respondents have also not produced any legal submissions or evidence to the contrary before me. They have merely stressed that they are a SSI unit and that these loop fasteners are used in baby nappies. On careful consideration of the ITC HSN noted above, I find that the end-use is irrelevant under this Policy. Once it is held that the goods are knitted of man-made fabrics, then the said HS makes its import restricted. The criteria of whether it is imported by SSI unit or otherwise can at best be a mitigating circumstances while adjudicating the quantum of fine, but the Import Policy Law is applicable to all kinds of importers.
5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, I find that the Order-in- Appeal impugned is not legal and proper and the same is set aside and the Revenue appeal is allowed.