9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,153R/Mtrs. Rs. 6,00,000/- 2. It was found on examination by the Chemical Examiner that the width of the goods was 154.5 cms. as against the width upto 150 cms. for which the import licence was issued. The Deputy Collector of Customs held that the goods were not covered by Notification No. 117/78-Cus. (as amended) as the specifications of the goods imported were not in conformity with those given in the DEEC No. 007/57 dated 4-6-1985. He did not allow the exemption to duty and demanded a duty of Rs. 2,42,802/- on the goods. Since the goods had been cleared under a bond, the conditions of the bond were enforced for recovery of the duty. The appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay was rejected on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... licence, particularly because the difference in width (viz. 4.5 cms.) is negligible. The excess width did not give any added advantage to the appellants since they were to manufacture only shoe uppers and this excess width did not give them the advantage of having any extra shoe uppers made out of the goods imported. The appellants have also stated that the goods imported have, in fact, been utilised for fulfilment of the export obligation. 4. Shri N.C. Sogani, the learned Consultant for the appellants, invited our attention to Serial No. 16 to the I Schedule to Notification No. 117/78-Cus., dated 9th June, 1978, which granted exemption to artificial resins and plastic materials, cellulose esters and ethers; articles thereof and stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was a hypothetical question. He also stated that the valuation of the goods would not have any bearing in this case. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. We notice that although the goods imported are of greater width than that mentioned in the import licence as well as in the DEEC, the appellants could have got an import licence as well as the DEEC for the goods actually imported. It is admitted that the goods imported have been utilised in the manufacture of shoe uppers which have also been exported in fulfilment of the obligations under the DEEC. The appellants have also explained that in terms of running metres they could have imported another 11,165 Mts. of PU Foam valued at over Rs. 2 lakhs. We do not, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
