9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (7) TMI 369X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndents factory. Some goods to be supplied as spares and therefore not requiring in processing were also received in Bombay. The respondent requested the Assistant Commissioner to keep these in the Customs bonded warehouse with seal at Bombay, without payment of duty in advance as was required by law at that time, till they could be exported along with the machinery under fabrication at Faridabad. The Assistant Collector permitted the goods to be stored in the warehouse subject to the approval of the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector allowed the goods to be kept in warehouse subject to the fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in Notification 10/90. Subsequently notice was issued as to why the goods should not be confiscated, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... himself records that warehousing was allowed subject to fulfilment of conditions prescribed in Notification 10/93. This notification specifies the purposes of sub-clause (v) of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 61 of the Act, various categories of the goods. One of these is goods meant for re-export. The specification of the goods in the notification itself was required in Section 61(1) which provides that goods so notified which could be kept in a bonded warehouse without payment of duty. This basis for the appeal fails. 5. Even if we accept that the Additional Collector, either erroneously permitted deposit of goods or permitted it to the fulfilment of a condition which was not fulfilled, the net result would be that duty would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete machinery to be exported. The value of the imported component is in excess of Rs. 3 crores and the value addition effected by the Indian manufacturer was nearly half, i.e. 48%. This is clear from the correspondence between M/s. Plasser Theurer of Austria and the respondent. Therefore, there has been substantial earning of foreign exchange to the extent of Rs. 1.75 crores. In these circumstances, it would be justifiable to permit re-export of the goods on a warning or action without imposing any fine, even if strictly speaking, they would be held liable for confiscation for having imported without a licence. The effect of Collector (Appeals) order is precisely this. I therefore, see no reason to interfere. 8. Appeal dismissed. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
