SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(SC) 498

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Collector of Customs, Bombay, Appellant
Versus
Swastic Woollen (P) Ltd. and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 1016-25 of 1988,
D/-10-8-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Addl. Solicitor General; Mr. Pramod Swarup and Mrs. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Mr. Madhava Rao, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Mr. R. Karanjawala, Mrs. M. Karanjawala and Mr. Indu Malhotra, Advocates, for Respondents.

Advocates:
Indu Malhotra, Kuldip Singh, M.KARANJAVALA, MADHAV RAO, PRAMOD SVARUP, R.KARANJAWALA, SUSHMA SURI, V.KRISHNAMURTHY, V.LAKSHMI NARAYANA

Headnote:

Customs Act, 1962 – Section 130E – Appeals under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 arise from the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi permits appeal to this Court from any order of the said Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment – appeals are at the instance of the revenue authorities, namely, the Collector of Customs, Bombay – Respondent importer is a company of small scale sector in Punjab and manufactures various kinds of yarns – It is stated that, the respondent No. 1 imported consignment of wool materials valued at and claimed the benefits under Notification –Held, Expression "wool wastes" is not defined in the relevant Act or in the notification – This expression is not an expression of art – It may be understood as in most of financial measures where the expressions are not defined not in a technical or preconceived basis but on the basis of trade understanding of those who deal with these goods as mentioned hereinbefore – Tribunal proceeded on that basis – Tribunal has not ignored the Technical Committees observations. We have noted in brief the Tribunals handling of that report – Tribunal has neither ignored the observations of CCCN nor the Boards Tariff Advice – These observations have been examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case – One of the basic factual dispute was long length of sliver tops – Having regard to the long length, we find that the Tribunal was not in error – Whether a particular item and the particular goods in this case are wool wastes, should be so considered or not is primarily and essentially a question of fact – Decision on such a question of fact must be arrived at without ignoring the material and relevant facts and bearing in mind the correct legal principles – Appeals dismissed.

Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- These appeals under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) arise from the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter called CEGAT). Section 130E(b) permits appeal to this Court from any order of the said Tribunal relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment. The appeals are at the instance of the revenue authorities, namely, the Collector of Customs, Bombay. The respondent No. 1/importer is a company of small scale sector in Punjab and manufactures various kinds of yarns. It is stated that on 19th May, 1984, the respondent No. 1 imported consignment of wool materials valued at Rs. 3,75,079/- and claimed the benefits under Notification No. 240/76- Cus. The respondent also claimed that the wool materials were wool waste, hence, the goods in question were not liable to customs duty. It is stated that on 6th November, 1984, an Expert Committee, comprised of Deputy Chief Chemist, Assistant Collector and Senior Scientific Officer was set up for the examination of the goods in question. The Expert Committee after examination opined that the wool goods were other than wool waste, hence, the goods were liable to duty of customs. On or about 2nd January, 1985, the department issued a notice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why action under section 111(d) & (m) and section 112 of the Customs Act and section 3 of the Import and Export (Central) Act, 1942 should not be taken against them. The respondents submitted the reply to the notice. The Additional Collector of Customs examined the whole case and adjudicated on 19th March, 1986 and the respondents were charged with the violation of the Import Control Regulations. The Additional Collector of Customs held that the classification of the goods should be under the heading 53.01/05 and also found the import to be unauthorised. Accordingly, the goods in question were confiscated but he gave option to the respondents to redeem the goods on payment of Rs. 90,000/- as fine, The respondent No.1/importer preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, against the order of the Assistant Collector, Bombay, and the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, after going through the provisions of the Act and the notification allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Collector on 19th January, 1987.

2. The question involved in these appeals before the CEGAT and the question involved herein in these appeals is, whether these goods are wool wastes and, as such, entitled to the benefit of exemption under the aforesaid notification. As it is apparent from the Tribunals order, the assessee or the dealer contends that these are wool wastes. The consignments were examined on percentage basis. On examination, it was found, however, that these items contained long length of slivers/tops etc. A thorough examination of these consignments was, therefore, ordered to verify the actual description of the goods. A technical panel was constituted for the purpose consisting of the Deputy Chief Chemist, Bombay, as Chairman, the Assistant Collector of Customs and a Senior Scientific Officer of the Office of the Textile Committee as the members. Based on the panels findings, show cause notices were issued to the importers that the goods appeared to be other than wool wastes, there were long lengths of slivers/tops or deliberately broken tops which could be easily joined at the end to prepare them ready for spinning. The importers were charged with the violation of the Import Control Regulations and asked to explain why action should not be taken under section 111(d) and (m) of the Act, and also why the goods should not be charged to duty under heading 53.01 and now 53.01/05(1) of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Customs Notification No. 154-Cus d











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top