1984 (7) TMI 257 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against customs order, interpretation of O.G.L. provision, classification of tissue paper as raw material or consumable, justification of redemption fine.

Analysis:
The appeal was against a customs order regarding the classification of imported tissue paper under the Open General License (O.G.L.). The appellant claimed the tissue paper was raw material or consumable for leather footwear manufacturing, qualifying for O.G.L. under Appendix 10(1) of the Policy. The lower authorities disagreed, leading to confiscation with an option for redemption on a fine. The appellant argued tissue paper was raw material or consumable based on trade usage and the Policy's definitions. They presented various arguments, including the use of tissue paper in leather footwear manufacturing. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the confiscation, rejecting the appeal.

The appellant contended that tissue paper qualified as raw material or consumable under the O.G.L. provision. They argued that tissue paper was essential for leather footwear manufacturing, citing trade understanding and Policy definitions. The appellant emphasized the use of tissue paper for wrapping and cushioning effects in footwear production. However, the authorities found the appellant's arguments inconsistent and lacking concrete evidence of tissue paper's role in their manufacturing process. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the decision based on the clear definition of consumables in the Policy and the lack of technical evidence supporting the appellant's claims.

The judges analyzed whether tissue paper could be classified as raw material or consumable under the O.G.L. provision. They noted that tissue paper, primarily used for wrapping, did not fit the definitions of raw material or consumable as per the Policy. The judges agreed with the Respondent's argument that tissue paper's role in leather footwear manufacturing was insufficient to classify it as raw material or consumable. The judges also dismissed the appellant's argument regarding the sample presented, stating it was an afterthought and lacked technical support. The redemption fine was deemed appropriate based on the usual practice of considering profit margins.

In conclusion, the judges rejected all appellant contentions, upheld the Collector (Appeals) order, and dismissed the appeal. The decision was based on the clear definitions in the Policy, lack of technical evidence supporting the appellant's claims, and the standard practice of determining redemption fines.