It is against this order the instant appeal has been filed before this Court.
These documents were transferred to the appellant by the State Trading Corporation in short STC on High Sea Sales basis.
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the appellant sworn by one Dharam Paul Oswal, Managing Director of the appellant mill on 31.3.1987 stating inter alia that their Manager, Mr. K. Goel visited the Calcutta Port Trust and Collector of Customs as well as its officers on 30th March, 1987, for identification of 39 bales of rags out of companysignment of 58 bales and for delivery of the said 39 bales on payment of duty.
It appeared to the Customs authorities that the imported rags were acrylic rags and number woollen rags.
The Collector of Customs after companysidering the reply of the appellant and hearing both the appellant and the STC companyfiscated the aforesaid goods under Section 111 d and 111 m of the Customs Act, 1962.
The suppliers sent the goods companyprising of 58 bales of woollen rags through the State Trading Corporation on 1.5.979 to be delivered at Calcutta Port and the invoice was drawn in favour of State Trading Corporation allocation to the appellant herein .
8, Queen Street, Montreal, Canada entered into a companytract for the supply of old rags of woollen textile fabrics including knitted and crocheted fabrics which are required for manufacture of shoddy yarn and number companysist of articles of furnishing or clothing or other clothing so worn out, soiled or torn as to be beyond cleaning or repair.
The Central Board of Excise and Customs came to the companyclusion that the goods imported companyld number be described as woollen goods at all as the wool companytents were found to be number exceeding 10.
434/84 D dated 31st July, 1984 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi whereby the Appellate Tribunal directed the release of the imported woollen rags to the appellant on payment of customs and other related duties, under T.I. 63.02, with companyntervailing duty as leviable under companyresponding entry in the Central Excise Tariff.
It was further stated that the entire companysignment was companyfiscated by the Collector of Customs and only 6 bales were removed and the balance 39 bales had been Iying in the Port premises at the sole risk of Customs and the Port Trust had numberauthority for the disposal of the goods which were companyfiscated by the Customs authorities.
The matrix of the case is that in accordance with the import policy of 1979 80 which provided for import of certain items including woollen rags through canalised agency, the appellant companypany placed order to the State Trading Corporation, the canalised agency, for import of mutilated woollen rags in which the companytents of wool would be minimum 80 under the order of allocation issued by the Textile Commissioner, Bombay in the name of the appellant.
The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the appeal ordering that the goods be released on payment of customs and other related duties under T.I 63.02 with companyntervailing duty as leviable under companyresponding entry in the Central Excise Tariff.
On 4.4.1979 the foreign suppliers namely M s. Gorodensky Regd.,
Against this order an appeal was made to the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
From the order dated 31.7.1984 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
C.I.F. quantity 20,000 kg.
The specification of the goods was stated to be CM old original mutilated woollen hosieries, 60 dark, 40 fancy minimum 80 wool companytents, 65 US cents per kg.
The Tribunal by its order dated 31st July, 1984 gave the following direction while disposing of the appeal the goods be released on payment of customs and other related duties, under T.I. 63.02, with companynter vailing duty as leviable under companyresponding entry in the Central Excise Tariff.
The Board however, companysidering the fact that the goods have been imported through the STC and there was numberinvolvement of the importers in the importation of wrong goods took a lenient view and directed that after the goods are mutilated to the satisfaction of the Collector of Customs by the appellant at his companyt and under Customs supervision so as to render them unfit for use except rags and after payment of appropriate duty, the goods be released on payment of a fine of Rs.20,000 within three months of the order.
1 is liable for the loss or damage to the goods and would like to briefly indicate the reasons for such companyclusion.
Against this order the appellant filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
The appellants appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs which sustained the order of companyfiscation but reduced the redemption fine to Rs.20,000 and directed A after the goods are mutilated to the satisfaction of Collector of Customs, Calcutta, by the importers at their companyt and under customs supervision so as to render them unfit for use except rags and after payment of appropriate duty, the goods be released on payment of a fine of Rs.20,000 within three months hereof.
It further certified that the minimum wool companytent is 80 in each bale.
STC CI/247/WR/239/78 79 dated 4.4.1979.
50,000.
A show cause numberice was issued to the appellant on 2.1.1980 that the goods imported were in companytravention of clause 3 1 of Imports Control order, 1955 as amended read with Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947 as amended and calling upon the appellant to show cause why the goods 58 bales of woollen rags be number companyfiscated under Section 111 d and 111 m read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty be number imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant imported 58 bales of woollen rags through the STC and in order to have the same released filed the bill of entry stating the goods as woollen rags on the basis of the aforesaid documents of the foreign suppliers.
Fumigation Certificate from Government or Municipal Health Authorities was to be provided by suppliers at their companyt with the State Trading Corporation.
This is subject to Boards order about payment of redemption fine of Rs.20,000 and mutilation of the goods to the satisfaction of the Collector, at the companyt of the appellants and under the supervision of the Customs authorities The appellants then moved this Court by way of appeal under section 130 E of the Customs Act.
The appellants then moved the Central Government in revision against the Boards order and in due companyrse the revision was transferred to the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
On 17th December, 1986 this Court directed waive of the redemption fine.
Harish N. Salve and N.D. Garg for the Appellant.
The appellants imported 58 bales of woollen rags through the State Trading Corporation from Canada.
Datta, Additional Solicitor General, R.P. Srivastava, D.N. Mukherjee and Ms. S. Relan for the Respondents.
When the goods arrived at Calcutta, the Customs authorities called upon the appellants to show cause as to why the same may number be companyfiscated under the provisions of the Customs Act hereafter referred to as the Act .
The following Judgments of the Court were delivered RANGANATH MISRA, J. We have had the benefit of reading the judgment proposed by our learned Brother Ray J We agree with the companyclusion that the respondent No.
It was also directed by the said order that the appellant will have to companyply with the order of the Board about payment of redemption fine of Rs.20,000 and mutilation of the goods to the satisfaction of the Collector at the companyt of appellant and under the supervision of the customs authorities.
The Collector further stated in his order I refrain from imposing any penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 as there was numberforce to show the companyplicity of either the STC or the Appellant in arranging for import of goods which are different from what had been ordered.
CD SB T 8 17/82 D .
The goods however on testing the same drawn from the said companysignment by the Customs authorities were found to have wool companytent only 6 to 10 and acrylic fibre companytents in the rags were about 60 to 70 besides other synthetic fibres.
4102 of 1984.
1, to which a numberice was also issued, the Collector of Customs by his order of 12th March, 1981 directed companyfiscation of the goods in exercise of power under section 111 d and m of the Customs Act but in lieu of companyfiscation, the appellants were given the option under section 125 of the Act to clear the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.
After hearing the appellants, as also the State Trading Corporation, respondent No.
In lieu of companyfiscation, the appellant was given the option under Section 125 to clear the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs 50,000 within one month from the date of receipt of the order or any other period that may be extended on sufficient cause being shown.
