9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Notification No. 159/90-Cus. 1.2 The appellants produced 6 Advance Licences and DEEC Books, the thickness of the Tin Plate for the manufacture of the resultant product specified, in 3 Advance Licences and DEEC Books is as under :- S. No. Advance Licence No. DEEC Book No. & Date Thickness of Tinplate for the manufacture of resultant product 1. P/L/3468215 0-7-1991 045001 1-8-1991 0.29 mm & .20 2. P/L/3468224 1-8-1991 045010 1-8-1991 0.22 mm & 0.25 3. 0300358 22-10-1991 046343 25-10-1991 0.18 mm & 0.24 1.3 The importers claimed 34.7438 Mts. of Tin-plate having CIF value of Rs. 7,73,527/- against Advance Licences and DEEC Book listed from S. No. (1) to (3) above. Under all these Advance Licences and DEEC Books, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellants has essentially reiterated the submissions made by him before the lower appellate authority. 3. We have also heard the learned SDR, Shri B.K. Singh who has submitted that an identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal recently in the case of Surekha Coated Tubes & Sheets Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [Final Order No. C/139/93-B2] and it has been held therein that the goods imported as replenishment material against raw materials components used in the manufacture of goods which have already been exported must be of the identical specifications. However, imported goods are not according to the identical specifications, they are not covered by the advance licence as well as by the exemption notification. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Sampatraj Dugar we hold that the goods which have not been cleared after availment of exemption under Notification No. 116/88-Cus. dated 30-3-1988 shall not be liable to confiscation under Section 111(o). The appellants have contended that the goods being strictly in accordance with the licence the order imposing penalty is not sustainable. The appellants' contention has to be rejected in view of our findings that the imported goods having been imported in violation of conditions of the licence and the conditions laid down in the Notification 116/88-Cus. are liable to confiscation under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mm to .03 mm range which would bring the imported goods within the range of materials used in the manufacture of export goods. We do not find much force in this plea of the learned counsel. Question of tolerances would arise only when the goods had been ordered for importation as per the specifications of the goods used in manufacture of export goods and they would have been found to be of slightly different specifications within the tolerances. Such is neither the case of the appellants nor has any evidence been brought on record that this actually is the position. Therefore, the benefit of tolerance so assiduously argued upon by the learned advocate for the appellants cannot be given to the appellants in the instant case. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
