9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Trafficking of License 2. Eligibility of Import under Open General License (O.G.L.) 3. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty under Chapter 84.66 4. Valuation of Imported Goods 5. Maintainability of Appeal No. C/569/85-A Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Trafficking of License: The Department alleged that the appellants indulged in the illegal transfer of non-transferable additional export house licenses, which amounted to trafficking. The Department accepted that the goods were sold on a high sea sales basis and allowed the amendment of the Bill of Entry to reflect M/s. Bentam Industries as the importers. The Tribunal found that since the goods were not covered by the additional licenses, any transfer of such licenses was void and had no bearing on the importation. The Tribunal also noted that the appellants other than M/s. Bentam Industries were not given a proper show cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, and penalties under Section 112 for violation of Section 111(d) were not sustainable. 2. Eligibility of Import under Open General License (O.G.L.): The appellants claimed that the imported items were covered under Item 9(24) of Appendix 2 of the Import Policy 83-84, which includes "Automatic or semi-automatic film developing and processing machines with microprocessor-based system." The Department argued that the item was not covered under this provision as it was meant for cinematographic studio and film laboratory equipment only. The Tribunal, however, accepted the appellants' contention, supported by the DGTD's clarification, that the imported items were indeed covered under Item 9(24) and could be imported under O.G.L. 3. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty under Chapter 84.66: The Department argued that the benefit under project import could not be extended as it was not initially claimed by the importers. The Tribunal noted that the consistent view of the Tribunal, supported by the Madras High Court's decision, was that the service industry was not excluded from the scope of project import. Since the period in question was prior to the amendment, and the Additional Collector had allowed the benefit in a subsequent appeal, the Tribunal found no justification to deny the benefit. The appellants were entitled to the concessional rate of duty under Chapter 84.66. 4. Valuation of Imported Goods: The appellants argued that the valuation determined by the Additional Collector was not a speaking order and lacked a proper basis. The Tribunal agreed that the order in Appeal No. C/76/86-A was deficient in discussing the basis for valuation. The Department was justified in discarding the invoice value if it was not the normal price and determining the value based on contemporary evidence. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for redetermination of the value in both appeals (C/566/85-A and C/76/86-A), instructing the Additional Collector to provide a detailed basis for the valuation and to allow the appellants an opportunity to present evidence. 5. Maintainability of Appeal No. C/569/85-A: The Tribunal held that Appeal No. C/569/85-A was not maintainable. The warning administered by the Additional Collector did not constitute an exercise of quasi-judicial powers and was not a decision or order within the meaning of these terms. Consequently, no appeal lay to the Tribunal against it, as per Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Conclusion: All appeals were disposed of in the above terms, with specific directions for remand and redetermination of valuation, and the appeal concerning the warning was dismissed as not maintainable.
|
