9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of the case are that the appellants herein imported, what they described as Blood Cell Separators which appeared as OGL Item in Appendix 6, List 2, Serial No. 26 of the Import Policy, April, 1985 to March, 1988. 3. On the other hand, the Department contends that the goods imported by the appellants are not Blood Cell Separators, but are Blood Counting Chambers falling under Appendix 8, Part : A, Item No. 20, which is a restricted item and as such required a valid Import Licence for importing the same. 3. The case was earlier adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs vide his order dated 24-5-1988. The same was set aside by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. A-989/Cal/94, dated 3-10-1994 and the matter was remanded to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd benefited by clearing the goods as Blood Cell Separators instead of Blood Counting Chambers. 6. Appearing on behalf of the respondent, Shri R.K. Roy, learned JDR submits that Blood Cell Separators and Blood Counting Chambers have been separately mentioned in the Import Export Policy for the relevant period and as such, the appellants, contention that they are one and the same, does not carry much weight. He also draws attention of the Bench to the statement of the importers wherein it has been admitted by them that Blood Counting Chambers and Blood Cell Separators are two different items. He, further, submits that from the labels pasted on the items, it was clear that the same were Blood Counting Chambers as has been recorded by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or importation of the same. Had the two items been similar and synonymous with each other, they would not have been listed at two different places in the Import Policy. I also find from the earlier order dated 24-5-1988 of the same appellant company in Order No. S-60(5)-563/87A(PT.)/S-33(5)-19/88A, dated 24-5-1988 passed by the same Commissioner, that the adjudicating authority at Para 6 of the said order held as follows :- 6. I have gone through the case records and the submissions made. The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the importers is that blood cell separators and blood counting chambers are one and the same. This contention cannot be accepted. At page No. 59 of the book entitled - `Approved Laboratory Technic by John A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the importers plea of bona fide belief that the items in question were importable under OGL. 13. I also note that by declaring the goods as Blood Cell Separators, the appellants had paid a higher rate of duty than what they would have paid had they declared the goods as Blood Counting Chambers. As such, I find that the appellants did not stand benefited by declaring the goods as Blood Cell Separators and accordingly, no intention to misdeclare the goods can be attributed to the importers. 14. As I have already held that the goods in question required a valid Import Licence, the contravention though unintentional, had been committed. Accordingly, I hold that the goods were liable to confiscation. However, in view of my discussions above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
