9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of additional license for import clearance. 2. Valuation of imported goods for customs purposes. 3. Imposition of redemption fine for re-export of confiscated goods. Interpretation of Additional License: The appellant imported a spectrometer for demonstration purposes and declared its value as US $24,000, supported by an additional license. However, the Customs House contended that the license did not cover the imported goods, leading to invalid importation. The Collector held that the license only covered a Vacuum Spectrometer, and since there was no evidence that the imported spectrometer was of that type, the import was deemed invalid. The appellant argued that the spectrometer was indeed a vacuum type, supported by a supplier's letter, but the Collector disregarded this claim. The Tribunal agreed with the Collector's decision, stating that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the spectrometer was of the type covered by the additional license, justifying the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Valuation of Imported Goods: Regarding the valuation of the imported spectrometer, the Collector based the valuation on inquiries into similar equipment prices, as the declared price was significantly lower. The appellant claimed the declared price was a special lower price, but this claim was not accepted. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, as the declared price was deemed inaccurate, leading to the imposition of a redemption fine. Imposition of Redemption Fine: The appellant sought permission for re-export, which was granted by the Collector along with a redemption fine of Rs. One Lakh. The appellant contested the imposition of the redemption fine, arguing that it was not justified. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including M/s. Skantrons (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi and M/s. Peejay Maya Exports v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, where it was held that imposing a redemption fine alongside allowing re-export was contradictory. Following these precedents, the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and the redemption fine, directing for a refund if the fine had already been paid, thereby allowing the appeal.
|
