9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not be considered as aligning tools specialised for use as a production aid for electronic industry and the same is not covered by the licence produced. The appellants waived the show cause notice and a personal hearing was granted. The learned Deputy Collector held that the licence produced by the appellants is not valid for the imported goods and therefore, the goods were confiscated under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and they were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fines of Rs. 25,000.00, Rs. 26,000.00, Rs. 14,000.00, Rs. 17,500.00 and Rs. 18,000.00, respectively according to the Rot. Nos. Line Nos. etc. The learned Consultant, Shri D.L Basu Roy contended on behalf of the appellants that the goods in question were imported by several other importers in the past and there was a past practice of clearing these goods. He also stated that in File No. S. 60-(VII)-III/84A of the Customs Department it reveals that several releases have been allowed with respect to the similar goods, earlier and therefore, the appellants have bona fide imported the same. In such circumstances, the confiscation of the goods is not in accordance with law since the goods imported were covered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the same can perform the function of Alignment of workpieces or workpiece fixtures. There is nothing there to indicate that these aligning tools imported by the appellants have got any special use in electronic industry. These are only precision measuring instruments of general use. In this connection, the learned Adjudicating Authority has also considered the expert opinion of Dr. (Mrs.) Jayasri Chaudhri, Joint Director of Electronics Commissions, NIC, Eastern Regional Cell. She has certified that specially for electronic industry, alignment tools are required for adjusting the tuned circuits for proper frequency response or for adjusting the time synchronization of component or on the whole adjusting components of a system for proper functioning of the electronic equipment. But there is nothing to show that the Dial Indicators in question can be used in electronic industry and the same is an aid for electronic industry. In absence of the same, the goods imported are not covered by the licence produced by the appellants. Point No. (a) is answered accordingly. 7. As far as the second point is concerned we have to find out whether the confiscation of the aligning tools is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar licences previously. Although in the original opposition it had been claimed that such importation was allowed and the goods were released on the basis of wrong information supplied by the importers, the customs authorities have failed to satisfy us that there was any wrong information or any misrepresentation in the matter of previous release of such goods on similar licences. The fact remains that such goods were released earlier and if they are not really covered by the licences they were so released due to the error on the part of the appraisers. The customs authorities, however, had sufficient materials before them to doubt the correctness of the earlier actions taken by the appraisers. The proceedings disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed by the customs authorities clearly go to show that there exist bonafide grounds for them to doubt the correctness of their previous decisions to release similar goods under similar licences. That being the position the short question which is to be decided by us is as to whether the customs authorities should be allowed to hold an adjudication for deciding whether tne goods are really covered by the licences..... ......It is tru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . For the purpose of finding out whether the earlier release was erroneous or not we allow the adjudication by modifying the order of the learned trial Judge...." It is, thus, clear from the above decision that the fact remains that such goods were released earlier and if they are not really covered by the licence they were so released due to the errors on the part of the appraisers. Their Lordships also in the above said decision held that the Customs Authorities had filed an affidavit which goes to show that there existed bona fide grounds for them to doubt the correctness of their previous decisions. Their Lordships also held that there were no materials before them to justify the stand taken by the Department that the previous imports were allowed on the basis of wrong information by the importers. However, it was held by their Lordships that the fact of earlier release of similar goods might have misled the importers in not ascertaining as to whether such goods really would come within the cover of the licence or not. It was also held that if erroneously such releases were made at an earlier stage, they cannot penalise such importation at a later stage until the error is fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
