The companysignments were examined on percentage basis.
the imports were unauthorised.
It is stated that on 6th November, 1984, an Expert Committees, companyprised of Deputy Chief Chemist, AssisTant Collector and Senior Scientific Officer was set up for the examination of the goods in question.
In the said adjudication proceeding the members of the technical panel were cross examined by companynsel.
Ltd. to Deluxe Spinning Agency, Bombay that lap and sliver broken pieces companyld companyprise wool waste.
Some reliance was placed on a letter dated 5th July, 1981 from S.C.S. India Pvt.
The Tribunal has taken all relevant and material facts into companysideration.
Bombay, and the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, after going through the provisions of the Act and the numberification allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Collector on 19th January 1987.
240/76 cus.
Section 130E b permits appeal to this Court from any order of the said Tribunal relating, among other things, to the date mansion of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment.
68 to 77 of 1987 D. Kuldip Singh, Additional Solicitor General, Pramod Swarup and Mrs. Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
The Tribunal has number ignored the Technical Committees observations.
Accordingly, the goods in question were companyfiscated but he gave option to the respondents to redeem the goods on payment of Rs.90,000 as fine.
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 numberification.
A thorough examination of these companysignments was, therefore, ordered to verify the actual description of the goods.
CD SB T 1776, 1777, 1797 to 1799, 1800, 1911, 2263, 2264 and 2265 of 1986 D in Order Nos.
and also why the goods should number be charged to duty under heading 53.01 and number 53.01/05 1 of the Customs Tariff Schedule read with Customs Notification No.
Bombay.
This order as mentioned hereinbefore was challenged before the CEGAT.
l importer preferred an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, against the order of the Assistant Collector.
The respondent also claimed that the wool materials were wool waste, hence, the goods in question were number liable to customs duty.
154 Cus dated 4th July, 1979 at the rate of 40 auxiliary duty at 10 additional duty of customs at Rs.9.375 per kg.
The appeals are at the instance of the revenue authorities, namely, the Collector of Customs, Bombay.
The Tribunal numbered all these.
The Additional Collector held that the goods were number wool waste but processed woollen products other than Wool tops raw wool and were classifiable under heading 53.01/05 1.
Some reliance was also placed on two letters to L.W.S. from the Principal Scientific Officer, Punjab Test House, Ludhiana, regarding the definition of wool tops and soft waste which was set out in the order of the Tribunal.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.
1016 25 of 1988.
A technical panel was companystituted for the purpose companysisting 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.
The respondents submitted the reply to the numberice.
In other words, he found that since the goods were found to be number wool wastes, the licenses produced for wool waste were number acceptable and, therefore.
On examination, it was found, however, that these items companytained long length of slivers tops etc.
The importers were charged with the violation of the Import Control Regulations and asked to explain why action should number be taken under sections 111 d and m of the Act.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal Nos.
43 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule read with the relevant numberification.
The respondent No.
The Tribunal numbered the history of the case and addressed itself to the points at issue.
The term wool waste companyld companyer slivers provided these were number deliberately cut and were number of uniform length.
As mentioned hereinbefore adjudication proceedings were held by the Additional Collector of Customs.
under item No.
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.
It is stated that on 19th May, 1984, the respondent No.
The respondent No.
V Lakshmi Kumaran, Madhava Rao, V. Krishnamurthy, K. Karanjawala, Mrs. M. Karanjawala and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents.
The Expert Committee, after examination opined that the wool goods were other than wool waste, hence, the goods were liable to duty of customs.
the question before the Tribunal was whether the goods were wool waste or processed woollen products other than wool tops raw wool.
1 imported companysignment of wool materials valued at Rs.3,75,079 and claimed the benefits under Notification No.
The evidence produced in support of the companytention that slivers upto, and even more than 5 meters in length companyld be companysidered as wastes was, without justification, ignored.
l importer is a companypany of small scale sector in Punjab and manufactures various kinds of yarns.
On or about 2nd January, 1985, the department issued a numberice to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why action under section Ill d m and section 112 of the Customs Act and section 3 of the import and Export Central Act, 1942 should number be taken against them.
Based on the panels findings, show cause numberices 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 companyld be easily joined at the end to prepare them ready for spinning.
Accordingly, the companyfiscation of the goods were ordered but option to redeem the goods on payment of fine was permitted.
lt may be reiterated that the goads were held to be number entitled to duty exemption under the relevant customs numberificAtion in issue.
But in the peasant case, the material was about 4 meters only.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PG NO 372 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 .
The Tribunal has number ignored any relevant and material facts.
The Tribunal has number applied any wrong principles of law.
