WAVIN INDIA LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. 3161/88 dated 29 -8 -1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay.

(2.) FACTS of the case, in brief, relating to the dispute are that the appellants imported 1875 M. Tons of PVC Resin Suspension Grade ex -M.V. OCEAN STAR from Yugoslavia declaring at a CIF price of US 477.44 per Metric Ton and for the whole consignment of 1850 MTs which is equivalent to Rs. 1,10,27,016/ -. On arrival of the goods it was noticed by the appellants that the goods were damaged on the Voyage due to bad weather and other causes. Accordingly, they claimed 50% abatement in value of the goods. A report of Surveyors was also filed in support of their contention that the Cargo was partly damaged. In a letter dated 17 -10 -1985 addressed to the Assistant Collector it was stated that due to faulty loading of the Cargo in the Vessel approximately 300 tons of the Cargo was lost and the whole Cargo had depreciated in value by about 60% due to mixing of the Cargo with foreign material and that the contaminated goods were totally unfit for being taken into use for manufacture of the articles like PVC pipes because these contaminated goods will bring number of manufacturing defects such as scratches, cracks, intermittent linings etc. They submitted that the goods would not be of any use for manufacturing standard quality items and consequently the goods would not fetch even 30% of the present market value of the sound goods. They submitted that this fact has been brought to the notice of the port department and insurance company and requested that the consignment may please be examined and thereafter reasonable abatement of duty may be given to them in respect of these goods claimed to be damaged and deteriorated in quality. They also addressed a letter to the Assistant Collector of Customs stating that suppliers had agreed to a rebate of 50% in price because the Cargo was damaged on account of faulty loading at load port and the supplier was willing to bear the cost of damage.

(3.) SHRI L.P. Asthana, learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submitted that neither copy of the test report relied upon by the Department was supplied to the appellants nor the sample taken for analysis could be considered as representative of the whole lot. He said that percentage of contamination whether 6.4% or 10% is immaterial as in any case it would render the consignment useless for the purpose for which it had been imported. He contended that claim of the appellants was not based on any report but on actual damage to the extent of 50% based on credit note given by the supplier after examining the goods. He said that since the supplier has accepted damage to the extent of 50% and given 50% rebate in price, the goods should be valued accordingly by giving 50% abatement.