9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the imported printing machine was covered under the Open General License (OGL) as per Appendix-I, Part-B, Serial No. 11(17) of the Import Policy, having an output of more than 35,000 copies per hour. 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 114-Cus. dated 19-6-1980 as amended by subsequent notifications. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Coverage under OGL: The petitioners claimed that the imported printing machine was covered under the OGL based on the Import and Export Policy 1985-88, specifically under Appendix-I, Part-B, Serial No. 11(17), which allows for the import of Web-fed High-Speed letter press rotary and Offset rotary printing machines with an output of more than 35,000 copies per hour. However, discrepancies arose when the Customs Department found that the invoice declared the machine's speed as 36,000 copies per hour, whereas the leaflet indicated 25,000 copies per hour. The petitioners submitted additional documents, including a certificate from the manufacturer and a letter from the agent, claiming modifications to achieve the higher speed. The court found that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the machine's capacity, especially given the lack of detailed documentation and the failure to produce the contract dated 24th March 1987. The court also noted the absence of modifications in the technical leaflet and the failure to conduct a test run of the machine, leading to an adverse inference against the petitioners. 2. Entitlement to Exemption: The petitioners sought exemption under Notification No. 114-Cus. dated 19-6-1980, which provided a reduced customs duty for specified printing machines. The exemption was contingent on the machine's capability to produce more than 35,000 copies per hour. The court held that the burden of proof lay on the petitioners to demonstrate the machine's eligibility for the exemption. Despite the interim relief allowing the machine's clearance, the petitioners did not produce conclusive evidence or conduct a test run to substantiate their claim. The court observed that the petitioners' failure to present the best evidence, including the operational manual and production data, warranted an adverse inference. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioners were not entitled to the claimed exemption and directed them to pay the applicable customs duty without penalty or interest, given the respondents' inaction. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish that the imported machine was covered under the OGL and entitled to the exemption. The petitioners were directed to pay the customs duty as per the law, with the respondents instructed to quantify the duty liability without imposing penalties or interest. The court's decision emphasized the importance of providing comprehensive and conclusive evidence to support claims for exemptions and benefits under import policies.
|
