CRESCENT FOODS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issue raised in all these appeals is the same. Accordingly, they were heard together and are disposed under this common order.

(2.) THE appellants imported garlic and sought clearance of the same as dried garlic under EXIM Code No. 07129004 of ITC (HS) Classifications. Customs Authorities proceeded against the goods on the ground that in terms of Policy Circular No. 32 (RE -99)/1999 -2000, dated 17th September, 1999 of the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, only garlic with a moisture content not exceeding 10% would be eligible for import as dried garlic. Another objection taken was that the goods had been under -valued. Under the impugned order goods have been confiscated and their value increased to US$ 510 per M.T.

(3.) THE appellants are contesting both the charges of violation of Import Control Law and under valuation of the goods. With regard to the finding regarding Import Control Law, it is their contention that the clarification under the Circular dated 17th September, 1999 cannot have any application to their cases as these imports had taken place prior to the issue of the circular. It is also submitted that other garlic consignments were being accepted as dried garlic, despite moisture content of 50% being observed on Customs house laboratory test. During the hearing of the case, learned Counsel has brought to our notice decisions of this Tribunal reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 210 (Tri. - Mum.) in the case of J.B. Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva and 2001 (132) E.L.T. 117 (Tri. - Bang.) in the case of Pallippadan Enterprises (one of the appellants in these proceedings) v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin setting aside the confiscation of garlic consignments based on the clarificatory Circular dated 17 -9 -96.