9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsignment of Nutmeg Oil under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for unauthorised import and for under-valuation of the goods. The appellant is stated to be a proprietory firm whose proprietor has since expired and this appeal is being pursued by his wife. The appellants imported a consignment for which a Bill of Entry was filed on 24-4-1985 declaring the CIF value of Rs. 26,066/-. The Customs House found that the declared value of 1.75 per kg. in the packing of 25 kg. was not the correct value because on enquiry with the local agent of the supplier from U.K., M/s. H.E. Daniel Limited, it was found that the value of the goods is actually 2.95 per kg. This, the Customs House found would have resulted in a loss of revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries. Being the actual user (industrial), the appellants had validly effected the import. Shri Sogani urged that the appellants herein had fulfilled the condition under Para 21(a) regarding the conditions governed with the import under OGL. He further pointed out that it was not as if in the Policy that the goods can be imported only by actual users because in the List 8 of the Appendix, Nutmeg Oil is not one of the items restricted for import only by actual users. According to the learned consultant, the item would be covered by Part-III of the list which allows imports by actual users and others for stock and sale. As regards the order of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports debarring the appellants from obtaining import lice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ignment. 3. Shri G.V.Naik, the learned Jt. C.D.R. appearing for the department contended that the actual user condition is essential for purposes of eligibility for import under OGL. The order of the Joint Chief Controller of Imports Exports clearly brought out the factual position that the appellants did not at all set up a factory at the address given and could not have used the material at all, and there was evidence of misuse of the imported material. The department had every right to rely upon this evidence to hold the import as unauthorised. The learned Jt. C.D.R. pointed out that by local enquiries with the Calcutta agents of the supplier, it has been established that there has been under-valuation which is further proved by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y such price list fails to carry conviction. They themselves say in their letter dated 1-4-1985 to M/s. United Trades Agency (Calcutta) that normally price lists are available and the non-availability was only for the time being. Equally unacceptable is the argument that the price of 2.95 per kg. is not that of import at the same time as the present consignment. We find that the Bill of Entry has been filed by the appellants in April, 1985 and hence in the proceedings initiated against the appellants thereafter the price adopted by the Customs House as ascertained from the same supplier is near enough in point of time to be accepted. In the result, it has to be held that the charge of under-valuation has rightly been held to be establishe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
