Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Sai Ram And Sons vs Collector Of Customs And Central Excise on 5 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(12)ECC177, 1987(12)ECR79(TRI.-CHENNAI), 1987(29)ELT546(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER S. Kalyanam, Member (J)
1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against the Order of the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, dated 9-7-1980 confirming the order of the Collector of Customs & Central Excise, Cochin dated 18-10-1979 imposing a penalty of Rs. 96,788.00 under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, the 'Act' for short on grounds of short landing of bulgar wheat of a quantity of 1382 bags valued at Rs. 80,656.98 by the appellants' vessel in September 1978 stands transferred to the Tribunal for being dealt with as if it were an appeal.
2. Shri Raghunathan, the learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact of short landing. It was urged that the goods imported namely, bulgar wheat are not liable to any duty at all under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as the same classifiable under Tariff Item 10.01/07 of the C.T.A. 1975 as cereal and the same is totally exempted from payment of any duty. It was urged that the authorities below have erroneously held that bulgar wheat is classifiable under Tariff Item 20.01/07 of the C.T.A. 1975 which is dutiable and levied the penalty in terms of Section 1J6 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short landed quantity of bulgar wheat. In support of the plea, the learned Counsel also produced for our consideration a communication from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (Department of Women & Child Development) dated 10-7-1986 and contended that bulgar wheat is only a cereal exempted from payment of duty under the tariff item referred to supra.
3. Shri C.V. Krishnan, the learned Departmental Representative urged that the question as to whether bulgar wheat is classifiable as a dutiable item or not has already been considered by the Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Shaik Mohd. Rowther Shipping & Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras, in CD(T)/MAS/103/80 dated 20-5-1983 and also in Customs Appeal Nos. 298/81 and 295/81 in Order dated 22-12-1986. The item being dutiable and the quantity short landed not being disputed, the learned DR contended that the impugned order is sustainable in law.
4. We have considered the submissions made before us. As rightly contended by the learned DR, the issue is already covered by an earlier Bench ruling of the Tribunal referred to supra which has also been followed in two Single Member appeals cited above. The fact that bulgar wheat is the resultant of subjecting wheat to some process such as thorough cleaning; removal of broken kernels and all foreign materials and keeping the same in the pressure cooker with a view to see that such cooking ensures complete gelatinisation of the starch without decolaration is not in dispute. After drying, the dry bran is removed and the remaining kernel is cracked to a desired granulation. Though various processes are involved, as indicated above in the manufacture of bulgar wheat, that would not take it out of T.I. 21.01/07 which covers food preparations not elsewhere specified or included. The communication of the Ministry of Human Resource Development emanates from the Deputy Secretary and addressed to one Shri Bhandari, presumably a ship owner's representative in Delhi. The letter in question would appear to be more recommendatory in nature than confirmatory in character of learned Counsel's view point. The learned Counsel fairly concedes that he does not have enough data to support or substantiate the view expressed in the said letter. In the circumstances, we are not able to place reliance on the same. Therefore, following the ruling of the Bench referred to supra and having regard to the admitted fact of short landing, we find that the impugned order appealed against is clearly sustainable in law and in this view of the matter, we dismiss the appeal.