M/S. Sani Exports Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellants imported measuring tapes. although, no literature is shown, from the description made by the commissioner(appeals), the goods were simple measuring tapes (sic) of flexible material which gets wound on a spool inside a case. the overall length was about two metes.the customs held that the tapes were "consumer goods" "and hence on the negative list. the imports claimed that the tapes were (sic) measuring tools used for industrial and engineering purposes and as such they were importable under ogl. both the authorities held that the tapes were consumer goods. hence, the present appeal.2. i find that before both the lower authorities, the thrust was on the identity of the goods as tools. the commissioner held that even if certain goods were capable of falling under the category of tools, the definition of `consumer goods' was such as to take such goods under the ambit thereof. i find that commissioner was right in holding this belief. i find that the goods are such as could be used by individuals, tailors, carpenters and artists. i uphold the belief of the commissioner that the goods were consumer goods.3. on the quantum of redemption fine, there was a dispute. the dy commissioner took the margin of profit to be 100%. the commissioner while holding that it was excessive made it at about 75% shri srikant pzarikh. manager submitted certain quotations dated between may 96 from certain traders giving market value of the identical goods and claimed that the margin was about 22%. i find that there is nothing on perusal of the two orders to show that these documents were placed before the lower authorities. in fact, no arguments seem to have been advanced on the aspect of margin of profit. however, shri parikh submits an order of the dy.collector of customs bearing no.s/1025/95 vb dated 2.3.95 issued on 26.4.95. this order deals with identical goods imported by another importer. the issue was identical ie.consumer goods.the value of the goods was rs.5,85,331/-.the fine prescribed was rs.55,000/- that is about 10%. in view of this order in the case of identical goods. i find that the claim of margin of profit being about 22% sustains.i therefore, reduce the quantum of fine from rs.3.25 lakhs to rs.1,00,000/-(rupees one lakh only). subject to this modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.

Judgment:
1. The appellants imported measuring tapes. Although, no literature is shown, from the description made by the Commissioner(Appeals), the goods were simple measuring tapes (SIC) of flexible material which gets wound on a spool inside a case. The overall length was about two metes.

The Customs held that the tapes were "consumer goods" "and hence on the Negative List. The imports claimed that the tapes were (SIC) measuring tools used for industrial and engineering purposes and as such they were importable under OGL. Both the authorities held that the tapes were consumer goods. Hence, the present appeal.

2. I find that before both the lower authorities, the thrust was on the identity of the goods as tools. The Commissioner held that even if certain goods were capable of falling under the category of tools, the definition of `consumer goods' was such as to take such goods under the ambit thereof. I find that Commissioner was right in holding this belief. I find that the goods are such as could be used by individuals, tailors, carpenters and artists. I uphold the belief of the Commissioner that the goods were consumer goods.

3. On the quantum of redemption fine, there was a dispute. The Dy Commissioner took the margin of profit to be 100%. The Commissioner while holding that it was excessive made it at about 75% Shri Srikant Pzarikh. Manager submitted certain quotations dated between May 96 from certain traders giving market value of the identical goods and claimed that the margin was about 22%. I find that there is nothing on perusal of the two orders to show that these documents were placed before the lower authorities. In fact, no arguments seem to have been advanced on the aspect of margin of profit. However, Shri Parikh submits an order of the Dy.Collector of Customs bearing No.S/1025/95 VB dated 2.3.95 issued on 26.4.95. This order deals with identical goods imported by another importer. The issue was identical ie.consumer goods.The value of the goods was Rs.5,85,331/-.The fine prescribed was Rs.55,000/- that is about 10%. In view of this order in the case of identical goods. I find that the claim of margin of profit being about 22% sustains.I therefore, reduce the quantum of fine from Rs.3.25 lakhs to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only). Subject to this modification, the appeal is otherwise dismissed.