9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : Justice U.L. Bhat, President]. Appellant imported a consignment of Kowa Brand Projector Lenses allegedly of Singapore origin, from a supplier in Singapore and presented Bill of Entry dated 10-12-1987 declaring the value to be Singapore $ 14040 CIF equal to Rs. 88,330.00 and declaring the goods to be spare parts of Cinematograph Equipments, Projector Lenses and sought import under OGL. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling these contentions, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand of differential duty. This order having been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals), the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the subject consignment consisted of Kowa Brand Projector Lenses of Singapore origin, while the price list relied on was of Kowa Brand Projector Lenses of Japa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y regarding the country of origin was false, an averment to that effect should have been made in the show cause notice to enable the appellant to make this position clear and produce necessary documents. At this stage, the Department cannot be permitted to urge a new case to the effect that the declaration in the Bill of Entry regarding country of origin was false or bogus. We, therefore, proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances, we find that there was no justification for loading the value. 3. Alternatively, it is contended by the appellant, in the event of differential duty being demanded, rate of duty should be reduced on account of applicability of Notification No. 93/86. The lower authorities have denied the appellant benefit of this notification and this finding is challenged by the appellant. Our attention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
