9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and granted redemption of the same on payment of fine for Rs. 50,000/-. 2. The appellants had filed Bill of Entry No. 41152, dated 28-7-1985 for clearance of goods described as photographic lenses valued at Rs. 1,94,865/- against licence No. P/W/0421338, dated 31-12-1985. The department on scrutiny found that the imported items fall under Sl. No. 471((3) of Appx. 3A of Import Policy 85-88 requiring specific licence for clearing the imported goods. 3. A Show Cause Notice dated 2-9-1987 was issued for confiscation under Sec. lll(d) and Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. The appellants had contended before the lower authoritiesthat they had purchased the goods on high seas. The licence produced by them was valued for the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice that the imported goods are used by professional cameramen and also used for enlargement purposes. Therefore, the Additional Collector came to the conclusion that the imported goods fall under Sl. No. 471 (iii) of Appendix 3A and hence the additional licence produced by the appellants was not valid one and that the importation is unauthorised one. The Additional Collector, however, did not take alenient view on account of past practice of clearance of similar goods by accepting addl. licence and on this ground he did not impose personal penalty under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act. 5. Sri Naveen Mullick, Advocate submitted that the impugned order is unsustainable in law and that the Additional Collector had failed to properly apply the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shed practice and confiscating the goods. In this connection, he relied upon the following rulings :- (i) Decor India and Others v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, as reported in 1987(31) E.L.T. 400T. (ii) Gujarat State Export Corporation v. Union of India, as reported in 1984 (17) E.L.T. 50. (iii) Shama Engine Valves Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay as reported in 1985(5) ETR 128 = 1984 (18) E.L.T. 533 (Tri). 7. Smt. Dolly Saxena, SDR supported the reasoning given by the Additional Collector in the impugned order. She submitted that the D.G.T.D. s clarifications had been obtained and only thereafter the Additional Collector had adjudicated the matter. She further contended that the appellants cannot take shelter under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ional licence produced by the appellants for covering the goods under import. In view of our aforesaid finding, they are covered by Entry at Sr. No. 471(3) of Appendix 3-A of 1985-88 ITC Policy. 10. The next plea raised by the learned Advocate of the appellants, is that similar goods had been cleared by the Customs under OGL. From a perusal of the Bills of Entry enclosed with the appeal we find that the full description of the goods imported under earlier consignments has not been given. It also appears that no sample was sent to an Expert as has been done in this case and opinion taken from the Expert. It is, therefore, not possible to rely upon the earlier pieces of evidence submitted by the appellants. Therefore, the citations given by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
