9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the goods imported are not cardboard but are white coated board which are identifiable as art boards in the common trade parlance. He has, therefore, held that the goods have been misdeclared in the Bill of Entry and are, therefore, liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, he has imposed a total penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- and redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- in all for all the three consignments. He has also denied the benefit of Notificati- on No. 203/92 which is applicable to goods imported under advance licences if they are usable in export products. We may, at this stage, mention that the Appellants herein are packed in cardboard box in which the Appellants alleges that such types of imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be extended to the goods or not, learned Advocate has submitted that the Collector in denying the said benefit has relied on a market inquiry which was never disclosed to them, as indicated in para 10.3 of the adjudication order. He is also pointed out that the wording of Notification 203/92 is clearly widely worded. It is not the actual use of the inputs in the export product which is now material for the purpose of extending the benefit of the said Notification. Its usability is enough, as has been clarified by the Finance Ministry itself in its Circular No. 4/93, dated 4th March, 1993 issued from F. No. 605/50/93-DBK. He submits that the only difference between the goods actually used in the export products and the goods actually impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be that the white coated board which has been actually imported by the Appellants herein are the ivory boards and therefore, are not covered by the licence. Consequently, it will be a misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry as well as the benefit of Notification 203/92 cannot be extended. He, however, fairly concedes on a query from the Bench that the finding is not very clear and he also concedes that the Collector has arrived at his decision of not extending the benefit of Notification on a market enquiry as well as their own admission at the investigation stae. He, therefore, submits that the adjudication order be upheld or at best the matter may be remanded so far as the extension of Notification 203/92 is concerned. 3. We have carefully ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the question whether the benefit of Notification is applicable to the goods or not, it would necessarily imply a finding whether the goods are ivory board or not. In that case, the question of misdeclaration would also arise. Therefore, he submits that the question of fine and penalty may be kept open. Shir J.C. Patel, learned Advocate for the Appellants, counters that there is already a finding that the goods are art board. This finding has not been challenged by the Revenue by way of cross-objection or by filing an Appeal. The findings that the goods imported are art board and consequently cardboard in view of Kamal Traders judgment cannot be questioned in the remand proceedings. The only question is regarding usability of the goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
