9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (3) TMI 221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... loat Glass and claimed the goods under OGL other than Negative List 1992-97". The Appellants claimed that the impugned goods were required by them as raw material for the manufacture of consumer durable goods i.e. processing of decorative mirrors and glasses. 3. The Lower Authority has held that the items being manufactured by the Appellants cannot be considered as consumer durable goods. The Lower Authority has confiscated the goods, with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,60,000/-. The Lower Authority has, also, imposed personal penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellants are in Appeal before me and desired to be heard in person. 5. Dr. Kantawala, Advocate, accompanied by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the goods imported by them i.e. Float Glass (tinted as well as clear) are required by them as raw material for the manufacture of consumer durable goods and as such they were actual user covered by the said circular. To substantiate their claim, they have submitted a copy of their registration as SSI Unit with Govt. of Maharashtra which indicate their activity as - processing of decorative mirrors and glasses . 8. Dr. Kantawala stated that the Customs had asked for a clarification, about whether the FLOAT GLASS was hit by the Negative List in the AM 92-97 from the CCI. The CCI vide his F. No. 48 (273)/92-97/IPC/2578 dated 7th December, 1992 addressed to the Addl. Collector of Customs, Bombay, opined as under: Please refer to y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Actual User with the concerned authority i.e. State Director of Industries etc.)" Sd/- (S.P.SHARMA) Dy. Chief Controller of Imports Exports. 9. Dr. Kantawala stated that both the copies of the aforementioned Circular were annexed to the Appeal Petition. Dr. Kantawala stated that the entire issue was whether, firstly the Appellant was an actual user of FLOAT GLASS, and secondly whether the MIRRORS manufactured by him were Consumer Durables or not. This, he stated, were two issues under dispute. Dr. Kantawala stated that the first point was not disputed because of the SSI. However, the Lower Authority, in his impugned Order, had questioned, whether the goods were actually Consumer Durables. The operative portion of the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated that the Appellant had been penalised and the goods confiscated were allowed to be redeemed on the payment of redemption fine as well as personal penalty had been imposed. This, he stated, was an extremely unjust and highhanded act on the part of the Lower Authority. Dr. Kantawala stated that this was so because the Lower Authority was not following a consistent policy in this regard. Dr. Kantawala, therefore, produced the following Bills of Entry, xerox copies of which are placed on record : Sr. No. Bills of Entry Date Party s Name Address Date of Payment 1. 0001937 dated 5-2-1993 Liberty Glass House, 57/59, Dhanji St., Bombay-400003. 9-3-1993 2. 0001845 dated 8-1- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n he has an SSI registration for the manufacture of Decorative Mirrors and Glass. I am afraid, he has further erred in claiming that Mirrors are not Consumer Durables . This point of view is clearly substantiated by the definition of the Durable and Durable Goods , given by an authoritative dictionary, excerpted hereinabove. 16. The Lower Authority has further erred in adopting discriminatory practices vis-a-vis imports of the Appellant and his competitors. It is obvious from three Bills of Entry, detailed above, that prior to as well as post the imports of the Appellants, the Lower Authority has been allowing FLOAT GLASS to be cleared without any hindrance under the Import Policy AM 1992-97. This shows that he is not consistent in ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
