M/S. Trade Well Products Company ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Ahmedabad
- CitationAppeal No. : C/809-812/2003
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where goods are cleared under a tariff heading on the footing that they are old and used readymade garments and not mutilated, and the importer does not dispute that classification, the duty payable is that fixed under the heading applicable to old and used garments, and a differential demand of duty with interest raised on the basis of the classification actually reflected in the clearance is legally sustainable.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-232-235/2003-90-93AHD-CUS/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 30.09.2003, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Customs, Ahmedabad)
M/s. Trade Well Products Company Limited : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : None
For Respondent (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 12.08.2015
ORDER No. A/11206-11209/2015 Dated 12.08.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
These appeals are taken up for hearing as per Order dated 24.02.2005 of the Honble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 113 of 2005 (Trade Well Products Company Limited vs. UOI & Others).
2. The Tribunal by Stay Order No. S/29-32/WZB/2004/C-II dated 24.02.2004, directed the appellant to pre-deposit Rs. 1.50 Lakhs. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by Order No. A/429-32/WZB/2004/C-II dated 21.05.2004 for non-compliance of the Stay Order. The appellant filed writ petition before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court against the Stay Order of the Tribunal. By judgment dated 24.02.2005, in Writ Petition No. 113 of 2005 (Tradewell Products Company Pvt. Limited & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors.), the Hon'ble High Court directed the appellant to deposit of an amount of Rs. 1.50 Lakhs within a period of eight weeks and if such a deposit is made by the appellant, all the four appeals before the Tribunal shall be stand restored and the same to be heard by the Tribunal on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible. It is seen from the records that the Assistant Commissioner (RRA) of Customs Ahmedabad by letter dated 02.12.2011 informed the Registry of the Tribunal that the appellant deposited the amount of Rs. 1.5 Lakhs on 20.04.2005.
3. None appears on behalf of the appellants. Despite issue of notice, there is no application for adjournment. As the appeals are old one, we take up the hearing of all the appeals for disposal.
4. After hearing the learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellant had imported four containers said to contain completely mutilated old synthetics and woollen rags. The appellants filed four bills of entry No. 33 and 34 dated 01.08.2000 and 75 and 78 dated 05.10.2000 for clearance of the said goods. During examination of cargo by the Customs officers, it was noticed that the consignments were old and used readymade garments, which were not cut or mutilated. The adjudicating authority ordered that the goods being mutilated before release in such a manner making them unserviceable as garments. The appellants filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) directed to release the goods without mutilation. The appellants cleared the goods on 26.04.2001 and 09.05.2001, classifying as mutilated old original synthetics woollen rags under CTH 6310.90. As the goods were cleared as old and used garments, the assessing officer classified the goods under CTH 6309.00 and raised demand of differential duty of Rs. 3,03,093/- alongwith interest. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest. By the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order.
5. On perusal of the records, we find that the appellants have not disputed the classification of the goods. It is seen that appellants cleared the goods as old and used readymade garments and the goods were not mutilated. So, the demand of duty along with interest as confirmed by the Adjudicating authority is legal and proper. So, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeals filed by the appellants are rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
4
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free