1994 (8) TMI 148 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, status of appellants as Letter of Authority holders for NRSA, filing of Bill of Entry in own name contrary to public notice.

Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appeal challenged an Order-in-Original confiscating goods valued at Rs. 93,001 but allowing redemption on payment of Rs. 20,000 with a personal penalty of Rs. 5000. The appellants imported photographic materials under OGL Appex. 6(5) of AM 1985-88 Policy, claiming to be Letter of Authority holders for NRSA. Discrepancies in value and status led to adjudication. Despite initial insistence on being Letter of Authority holders, the terms of the agreement indicated a seller-purchaser relationship, not principal-agent. The authority upheld the confiscation order, loading the value by 10%.

Status of Appellants as Letter of Authority Holders:
The appellants argued they were Letter of Authority holders for NRSA, supported by documents like Letter of Authority, Bill of Entry, and agreements. They contended that charging 35% margin was for services, not profit, as misstated by NRSA. The JDR argued that admitting to profit margin implied a sale transaction, not agency status. The Tribunal analyzed the agreement, concluding the appellants acted as Letter of Authority holders for NRSA, not sellers. Non-compliance with public notice on Bill of Entry filing did not invalidate their status.

Filing of Bill of Entry in Own Name Contrary to Public Notice:
The Ld. Advocate argued that Handbook provisions allowed government department imports by Letter of Authority holders, contrary to the public notice. The JDR contended that failure to file in the original importer's name indicated non-Letter of Authority status. The Tribunal found the appellants eligible under Appx. 6(5) of the Policy Book, acting as Letter of Authority holders for NRSA, thus setting aside the authority's order.

This judgment clarifies the status of the appellants as Letter of Authority holders for NRSA, emphasizing the contractual terms and documentary evidence over inadvertent statements. It also highlights the importance of adherence to policy provisions over conflicting public notices. The valuation issue, though initially raised, was not pressed, focusing the appeal on the core issue of the appellants' role in the import process.