2000 (4) TMI 101 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term "sheets" in a customs notification.
2. Applicability of previous judgments on similar cases.
3. Consideration of Apex Court ruling in CC v. K. Mohan & Co. Exports.
4. Benefit of Notification No. 20/99 for imported goods described as PUC Insole material.
5. Request for re-export of goods due to changes in rates.

Issue 1: Interpretation of the term "sheets" in a customs notification.
The appeal involved a dispute over whether goods imported, described as PUC Insole material in 50 mtrs length, qualified as "sheets" under Notification No. 20/99. The Commissioner denied the benefit of the notification, arguing that the item in rolled form did not fall within the description of "sheets." The appellant contended that the goods were cut to size for making Insoles & Midsoles, distinguishing them from the Apex Court judgment on plastic films. The Tribunal considered the trade understanding and previous practices of granting benefits to similar consignments.

Issue 2: Applicability of previous judgments on similar cases.
The appellant cited the Tribunal's judgment in Madras Rubber Factory case and Mod Apparel Exports case to support their claim that the goods should be considered as "sheets." The Revenue, however, argued that these judgments did not consider the Apex Court ruling in K. Mohan & Co. Exports case, which distinguished between "sheets" and "sheetings." The Tribunal analyzed these arguments in light of the legal interpretations provided.

Issue 3: Consideration of Apex Court ruling in CC v. K. Mohan & Co. Exports.
The Tribunal extensively discussed the Apex Court's ruling in CC v. K. Mohan & Co. Exports, emphasizing the distinction made by the Court between "sheets" and "sheetings." The Revenue contended that the goods in question could not be considered as "Insoles or Midsoles" and should not qualify for the notification's benefit. The Tribunal evaluated the applicability of this ruling to the present case and its impact on the interpretation of the term "sheets."

Issue 4: Benefit of Notification No. 20/99 for imported goods described as PUC Insole material.
After a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by both parties and the relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the goods imported by the appellant should be classified as "sheetings" and not "sheets cut to form size." The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to deny the benefit of Notification No. 20/99, dismissing the appeal based on the findings derived from the Apex Court's judgment and the specific description of the imported goods.

Issue 5: Request for re-export of goods due to changes in rates.
Lastly, the appellant requested permission to re-export the goods due to a decrease in rates, making it financially unfeasible to clear the goods with the prevailing rates, including demurrage. The Tribunal directed the appellant to make the re-export request to the concerned Commissioner for consideration in accordance with the law.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the appeal.