LAWS(CE)-2000-1-106

LTDQUICK INTERNATIONAL (SH. Vs. C.C., CALCUTTA

Decided On January 24, 2000
Ltdquick International (Sh. Appellant
V/S
C.C., Calcutta Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in the present appeal relates to correct classification of "1/2" VHS Type NV -E 180 blank Video Casettes" of Japanese origin whereas M/s Quick International of Ajmeer claims classification of the same under Exim Code No.852390 03.20 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items as freely importable, the Revenue classifies it under Exim Code No.852390 03.90 requiring specific import licence.

(2.) THE appellants had imported 44,000 pieces of the Blank Video Cassettes of the type described above valued Rs.14,38,800/ - and filed Bill of Entry dated 30.12.99 for their clearance under OGL claiming classification of the same under Exim Code No.852390 03.20. Revenue felt that such cassettes meritted classification under Exim Code No.852390 03.90 as the same are for exclusive use with VHS Type VCR the import of which requires specific licence. As the appellants failed to submit import licence covering the said consignment, the impugned goods were confiscated with redemption fine of Rs.14,00,000/ -. under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for ITC violation and imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/ - on the appellants under Section 112 ibid vide Order -in -Original No.21/2000 -Commr. dated 3.12.99. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants.

(3.) MRS . Reena Khair, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, submits that the Adjudicating authority erred in holding that the impugned cassettes meritted classification under Exim Code No.85230 03.90 as the same are "suitable" for use only in VHS type VCR, the latter being in the nature of consumer goods. The learned Advocate argues that Exim Code No.852390 03.20 nowhere stipulates that its entry is restricted to S -VHS video cassettes only and as such there is no prohibition to classify the impugned cassettes in it. She further argues that the finding of the Adjudicating authority is contrary to the classification given by the Directorate of Foreign Trade (DGFT). She points out that as per the provisions contained in para 4.13 of Chapter 4 of the Exim Policy 1997 -2000, the classification issued by the DGFT has the binding effect. She invites attention to the DGFT's letter dated 30.8.99 addressed to Joint Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad and another letter dated 17.12.99 addressed to Commissioner of Customs, calcutta (in their own case) wherein it is clarified that "a specific entry against the ten digit Exim Codes (as mentioned above) will take procedure over general entry against the Main Heading No.85.23 of ITC (HS) classification of Exports and Imports." The learned Advocate refers to the decision of Commissioner of Inland Container Depot, Tuglakabad, New Delhi vide his order dated 29.3.2000 wherein he classified the similar goods under Exim Code No.852390 03.20 and allowed clearance without any specific import licence. The learned Advocate argues that the Adjudicating authority acted illegally inasmuch as similar and identical goods were cleared by the same Custom House under the Exix Code No.852390 03.20 and as such the action of the Revenue is arbitrary and discriminatory. She further argues that the impugned order is ab initio void inasmuch as the same has been passed without giving an opportunity for hearing to the appellant and without issuing any Show -cause Notice and as such violated the principles of natural justice. She pleads that it is settled law that even if the Show -cause Notice is waived, it is mandatory duty of the Department to issue a Show -cause Notice as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.