Per Shri S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President :

These are appeals against the order of Collector of Appeals, Customs, New Delhi dt. 10.10.90.

2. Learned Representative of the appellants stated that they imported two consignments of woollen synthetic rags in terms of paragraph 21 and 45 of Appendix-6 of the Import Policy 1985-88.

3. The goods were examined by Customs who found them not to be completely mutilated. They also considered that the importer was not an actual user under this Policy.

4. The appellant waived the issue of show cause notice, but filed written submissions before the authority. It was their contention that they were actual users as per the definition thereof in the Import Policy for 1985-88.

5. They were granted registration of their products by Regional Textile Commissioner, Kanpur, Who was their sponsoring authority.

6. They had submitted to the Customs Authorities that if the goods had not been mutilated to their entire satisfaction, they may be further mutilated to their satisfaction.

7. Further, these goods were shipped as per Bills of Lading before March 1988, when the new Policy was not in force as the latter came into operation only with effect from 1st April 1988.

8. It was their contention that C.E.G.A.T. has vide its order No. A/432/90-NRB, dt. 11.9.90 held that they were actual users and that ratio therefore is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases.

9. That the Collector of Customs (Appeals), travelled beyond the issues originally involved and the goods have been detained for no fault of theirs and they had to pay demurrage charges etc., and in facts a certificate should be issued in their favour.

10. The learned Collector (Appeals) has not appreciated the facts and the law correctly.

11. It was their further contention that the Rajasthan High Court has in any case stuck down the Customs Trade Notice on the basis of which the cases were made out.

12. It was his submission therefore the benefit of Supreme Court judgment in the case of Kakar & Company and subsequent orders of the Tribunal based on the same was available to him.

13. The learned Departmental Representative at the outset raised a doubt about the genuiness and correctness of the Bill of Lading filed by the appellants and had informed the Bench that he had requested the Departmental authorities to conduct enquiries. Subsequently he state that he has received a letter from the Assistant Collector of Customs (ICD), New Delhi, dt. 7.12.91. This report is based on enquiries from Lloyd's Maritime Information Services Ltd., London with reference to the Bill of Landing filed by the appellants in Appeal No. C/3228/90-NRB. A copy of the bill of Lading filed shows that the goods were shipped on board on 30.3.1988, but the enquiry with the Lloyd's shows that the vessel President Buchanan was on high seas on 30.3.1988 and reached Los Angeles only 8.4.88. Therefore, the date shown in the Bill of Lading does not appear to be correct and this may be taken into consideration.

14. The learned Representative of the appellant asserted that what he had filed is what he has received and there was no reason to doubt its correctness. In any eventuality, it is the date of shipment which is relevant irrespective of whether 85 or 88 Policy or 89 or 91 Policy was concerned.

15. Learned D.R. also observed that he has filed a copy of the Certificate from the Lloyd's and the Lloyd's are an internationally reputed concern whose certificates are universally honoured and accepted.

16. He further stated that prima facie the copy of the Bill of Entry filed appear to be incomplete or incorrect and were not certified true copies. The Bench thereupon had allowed time to the Department to call for the original records and the other side to inspect if necessary and thereafter to make submissions.

17. The learned Representative for the appellants there upon stated that the copy in respect of one of the Bill of Entries had been re-constructed by him from memory and in t