9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctober 1987 was filed for clearance of the goods in question under OGL App. 6(1) of ITC Policy, 1985-88, which related to raw materials, components and consumables (non-iron and steel items) other than those included in the appendices 2,3 part A 5 and 8. The appellants had imported FIVE consignments of similar lenses, spread over three preceding licensing periods (viz.1981-82), 1982-83 and 1983-84, and cleared them under OGL from the same Custom House. During the periods of the earlier clearances the OGL was covered under Appendix 6. Except for this minor change, there was no other change whatsoever in the respective licensing policies. However suddenly, without any prior notice and despite this clear position, the Asstt. Collector of Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31-10-1988 but the requests have been persistently ignored by the department. 7. The learned counsel stated that in view of the above position, the impugned order was required to be set aside 8. The learned DR drew attention to the order in original and in particular to the discussions and findings portion of the order and emphasised that Sl. No. 46(3) (iii) refers to cinematograph equipments and the items imported cannot be considered as such. He also pointed out that in fact the offer was made to the importer to make reference to DGTD which is an expert body and one which could advise the department on such matters. The importer has however refused to cooperate and has insisted that he did not want any reference to be made. From this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the report was required to be given to the appellants. The learned Additional Collector is however silent on this point. Moreover it is not clear as to why an offer was subsequently made to refer the matter to the DGTD. In any eventuality it shows that the department itself was not sure and such an offer after the issue of show cause notice does not make any sense. Again in so far as the previous importations were concerned, even if they were under the period of earlier import policies it was required to be seen as to whether there was any substantial change in the policy and the language or contents of the relevant appendices or not. If there was no substantial or significant change then the previous importation would constitut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aders are simply referred to as lenses (and not objectives). The department has not met this point (also). In the invoice produced alongwith the bills of entry the goods have been described as micro film readers - printer lenses and the same description has been given in the bill of entry. Other documents also refer the goods as lenses for micro-film equipment. The appellants have also produced certificates from some of the users to show that lenses of micro-film readers are called as such and not as objectives. Thus it is seen that the department has not contradicted or controverted or proved wrong the material placed before it during the adjudication and the learned Additional Collector has summarily dismissed the point as irrelevant with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
