9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o observe that the drawings and designs which were imported by the appellant were correctly classifiable under Heading No. 49.06 and the tariff itself providing that the import of the same is free, the said drawings and designs were not dutiable articles, and, therefore, no customs duty was leviable thereon even as a part of the passenger baggage . Thus, even if the item has been brought as baggage item, the same is not chargeable to duty. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that there was technical collaboration between M/s. Schiele Industrieswerke Gmbh, West Germany and M/s. Havell s India Pvt. Ltd. Under this collaboration agreement, the foreign exporter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs (Appeals) has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ACC Ltd. reported in 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is incorrect inasmuch as in para 54 the Apex Court held : 54. In the present case, the technical literature, drawings, manuals, etc. were imported through courier and in one case through Mr. Kato. In each of these cases it is only a nominal value which was disclosed at the time of importation. All this technical literature, drawings, etc. were brought and cleared as personal baggage. In our opinion, to examine whether the proviso to Section 28A(1) was validly invoked. It is necessary to see the provisions relating to the clearance of the personal baggage . He further submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riers were to be divided into three categories which are (a) documents, (b) samples and free gifts, and (c) dutiable goods. 5. He submits that reading these three paragraphs together clearly show that during the period in dispute duty was payable at the tariff rate after including the value of the documents in the value declared by the importer. Ld. SDR, therefore, submits that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of ACC Ltd. cited above and that the matter may be referred to the Commissioner concerned for computing the duty on the goods. 6. None appears for the respondent. 7. We have heard the ld. SDR. We have also perused the evidence on record and also the judgment of the Apex Court in the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
