9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (9) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocuments and inspection of the imported goods it was observed by the customs authorities that the toys imported by them were not permissible for clearance against the SIL produced by them. Accordingly proceedings were initiated against them and they were issued a show cause notice dt. 18-11-1995 in which it was alleged that the imported goods were in the nature of consumer goods as per the provisions of para 156(1) of the EXIM Policy 1992-97; that the goods were imported unauthorisedly and the same were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. It was further alleged that kitchen sets were undervalued. The importers replied to the show cause notice and contended that all the items imported by them are electronic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8-1995 admittedly are not classifiable under heading 9503.20 or 9504.10 of the Customs Tariff. Therefore, he has held that the goods are imported in contravention of the provisions under the EXIM Policy and hence liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. As regard the valuation, he observed that in respect of 888 kitchen sets, the same importer had previously imported 4 dozens of the same goods as against the import of 30 dozens in the present case. He rejected the contention of the noticee party that since there was a large quantity difference between the two imports, therefore the value of the earlier imports could not be made applicable to the present ones and ordered the kitchen sets to be assessed at the uni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as held that there is no discrepancy in the licence and the importers have not violated any provisions of the EXIM Policy and in view of the clear endorsement that the SIL is valid for the import of goods as per the list attached. As regards the valuation of the kitchen sets, it is observed that the customs authorities have not been able to show as to how the price given by the seller should not be accepted under Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules. As for the comparable value adopted by the original authority in respect of the imports made earlier by the same party, it is observed that there is a vast difference in the quantity compared with the earlier import and the goods are also not imported from the same country of origin. Consequen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate appearing for the respondents has reiterated the same submissions as made by them before the original as well as the lower appellate authority. The reliance is placed by him on the following decisions in which it is held that while comparing value and quantity of the imported goods, these should substantially be the same as imported in the earlier case. (I) M/s. Sohen Export House v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 327 (T). (II) M/s. Sneha Traders v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 43 (Calcutta). (III) M/s. Honest Traders v. Collector of Customs - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 102 (T). (IV) M/s. Elite Packaging Industry v. Collector of Customs - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 311 (Tribunal). 5. We have carefully consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
