9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 201X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector, after observing legal formalities, passed order holding that import could not have been made under OGL as it required specific licence, that there was misdeclaration of value as was evident from the price declared in a comparative import at almost the same time and demanded differential duty, confiscated the goods fixing redemption fine of Rs. 1,37,000.00 for each consignment and levied penalty of Rs. 70,000.00 on the manufacturer. Penalty of Rs. 3000.00 was imposed on the Manager of the Bank who issued the letter of credit on the ground that the document was antedated. This order is now challenged in the present appeals, one filed by the importer and the other by the Manager of the Bank. 2. Import Trade Control Order 1 of 1982 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conditions in the Import Trade Control Order 1 of 1982 was that items covered by Appendix 4 cannot be imported, the Department took the view that the appellant could not import the consignments of Oxytetracycline HCL under OGL. 3. The answer of the appellant is two-fold. It is contended that while the Import Control Order 1 of 1982 has statutory root, inasmuch as it was issued in exercise of the power vesting in the Central Government under Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, the Policy and the amendment to the Policy are purely executive in character and cannot override the statutory order. It is further contended that Appendix 4 was incorporated by reference in the Import Trade Control Order 1 of 1982 and, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 1 of 1982 could not be said to include Oxytetracycline HCL. Therefore, the bar on import contained in Appendix 1 of the Import Trade Control Order 1 of 1982 would not affect the import of Oxytetracycline HCL by the manufacturer in this case. The import could be made OGL. 5. The next contention relates to the valuation. The price declared was US $ 28.30 per kg. The assessed price was US $ 30 per kg. The total quantity imported was 1000 kgs. The import in this case was from a concern by name Krka, Yugoslavia. The Collector relied on the price shown in an invoice relating to import by another Indian importer from a concern by name Pliva, Yugoslavia. Though the country of origin was the same, the manufacturer was different. Considering the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
