Skip to content


JaIn Silk Traders Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On
Reported in(1983)LC866DTri(Chennai)
AppellantJaIn Silk Traders
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....out that under paragraph 19 of appendix 10 of the policy book 1982-83 :- "actual users at the time of clearance of goods shall furnish to the customs authorities a declaration giving particulars of their industrial licence or registration as an actual user with the concerned authority." the requirement of furnishing a certificate from the appropriate authority, it is stressed, is at the time of clearance of the goods and not at the time of shipment. it is also pointed out that the contract has been registered with the textile commissioner on 17-7-1982.5. the departmental representative, however, argues that only an actual user can ask for registration of a contract; in the absence of a certificate for registration as an industrial unit from the appropriate authority, he argues, the.....
Judgment:
1. Appeal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order of the respondent contained in his order No. S8/382/82 Gr. I, dated 11-1-1983 with consequential relief.

2. This appeal coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri N.S. Venkataraman, authorised representative of the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following Order : 3. By his order referred to ... para 1, the Collector of Customs, Madras, confiscated a consignment of Acetate Filament Yarn valued at Rs. 1,25,818/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(2) of the Import and Export (Control) Act, 1947, and fixed a fine of Rs. 18,873/- in lieu of confiscation. He found that on the date of shipment of the goods the importers failed to satisfy the requirement as set out in the Import Policy Book 1982-83. According to the Policy, the importer has to register his contract with the Textile Commissioner and he is also an actual user of the material. The party holds a certificate from the Department of Industries and Commerce indicating that his is a small scale industrial unit registered with the Directorate. The certificate is dated 2-12-1982. The Collector, by implication, felt that this does not indicate that the appellant was an actual user at the time of shipment of the goods or their clearance.

4 Before us the representative of the appellant points out that under paragraph 19 of Appendix 10 of the Policy Book 1982-83 :- "Actual users at the time of clearance of goods shall furnish to the Customs authorities a declaration giving particulars of their industrial licence or registration as an actual user with the concerned authority." The requirement of furnishing a certificate from the appropriate authority, it is stressed, is at the time of clearance of the goods and not at the time of shipment. It is also pointed out that the contract has been registered with the Textile Commissioner on 17-7-1982.

5. The Departmental Representative, however, argues that only an actual user can ask for registration of a contract; in the absence of a certificate for registration as an industrial unit from the appropriate authority, he argues, the registration itself is of doubtful validity.

6. The requirements of the O.G.L. are clear. The importer has to register the contract with the Textile Commissioner prior to importation and at the time of clearance, he should produce a certificate from the appropriate authority that his is an industrial unit. Paragraph 19 of Appendix 10, as it is worded, cannot, we consider, be stretched to mean that the importer should have a certificate of registration as an industrial unit at the time either of application to the Textile Commissioner for registration of contract or when the goods were shipped. In this view, we find that the importation is covered by O.G.L. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of confiscation passed by the Collector. The fine in lieu of confiscation already paid will be refunded to the appellant.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //