9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permitting redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively on the two Bills of Entry and levying penalty of Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively. Imported goods are covered by two invoices. Bills of Entry are dated 3-12-1990 and 4-1-1991. Quantities covered are 14,000 pieces and 19,000 pieces respectively. Declared value was Singapore $ 0.53 per piece CIF. Appellants produced manufacturers invoice dated 10-12-1990 to the supplier for 14,000 pieces showing the price of Singapore $ 34 FOB. The goods were of Chinese origin. The appellants supplier is at Singapore. The Collector found suspicious circumstances surrounding the manufacturers invoice as well as the appellants invoices and rejected the transaction v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sister concern in Singapore to a supplier in Singapore. In other words, it was a local invoice. However, the invoice relied on by the Department was issued by manufacturers sister concern to the importer at Madras. Explanation offered by the appellant was that while one was a local sale and the other was export sale and, therefore, in all probability, two sets of invoice books were being maintained and, therefore, the discrepancy in the invoice numbers. Prima facie,the explanation appears to be acceptable. The Collector did not consider this explanation. He should have considered the same and if he felt any doubt about it, he could have verified from the manufacturers sister concern their explanation for the apparent discrepancy. Thus we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... saction value is accepted, the licence produced by the appellant would cover the import of the goods. In these circumstances, the impugned order, to the extent it relates to confiscation, redemption fine and penalty, cannot stand. 4. Appellants pleaded before the Collector that they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 62/88-Cus. and the Collector held against on the ground that the notification would apply only if the importer was an actual user. We have perused the copy of the notification. The notification does not restrict the benefit thereunder to actual user. However, since the duty on the transaction value, which is accepted by us, is less than the duty prescribed in the notification, appellants cannot derive any advant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
