9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents, no firm in the name and style of M/s. Stylo Foot Wear existed at the address given in the bill of lading and other import documents. It was also found that the import and export registration certification dated 30-9-85 had not been issued to M/s. Stylo Foot Wear. It was also found that the said certificate under which OGL was claimed was not genuine. The goods were described as insoles for leather footwear made of plastics and the price was shown as US $ 1.00 per metre CIF, Bombay. The goods were found to be of Taiwanese origin. Bombay Customs Authorities also recovered a letter dated 2-11-1990 of M/s. Stylo Foot Wear from the Bank of Baroda. In this letter, M/s. Stylo Foot Wear had declared (a) the import of insoles for footwear are covered by OGL Appendix 6 Part I List 8 Item No. 633 (b) that the goods had not been included in the banned or restricted list. It was evident from this declaration to the Bank that they had imported the subject materials with an intention to clear the same under OGL. On examination of the goods in the presence of witnesses, they were found to be rolls of plastic coated fabrics, each roll of 50 metres length and 142 cms. breadth and some rolls of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of US $ 1.00 per metre CIF Bombay for the entire consignment of 43,050 metres imported in three containers (ii) that why the goods should not be assessed as coated fabrics under Chapter Heading 5903.90 CTI and 5903.23 CFT as against the declared description of insoles and leather footwear (iii) why the goods should not be confiscated and (iv) why penalty should not be imposed. 4. Shri Nitin Kantawala, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submitted that natural justice was denied to the appellants; that the appellants had been sending request for re-export of the said goods which were not heeded to by the respondent; that the show-cause notice was challenged and request for re-export of the goods was again submitted; that the request for re-export was ignored and the goods were confiscation in total violation of the Rules of natural justice; that the title in the goods had not passed to any person including the importer; that the documents representing title to the said goods remained unpaid and therefore, the appellants were the owners of the said goods even though these goods were seized by the Customs Authorities at Madras; that there was no misdeclarati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decisions and prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the goods may be permitted to be re-shipped to the foreign supplier. 5. Shri Appearing for the respondent submitted that the show-cause notice issued to M/s. Stylo Foot Wear, Bombay was returned undelivered; that enquiries, and investigations made in the matter revealed that no firm in the name of Stylo Foot Wear existed at the address given in the import; documents; that the SSI certificate alleged to have been issued in the name of M/s. Stylo Foot Wear was not genuine; that this clearly shows that the importing firm was fictitious and did not exist. 6. Continuing his argument, learned SDR submitted that the goods were described in the invoices as insoles for footwear; that on the basis of technical opinion, it was found that the imported goods were not insoles for footwear but they were coated fabrics; that coated fabrics were not eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 224/85; that the goods were imported under OGL on the basis of an SSI certificate which was not genuine. The learned SDR submitted that the importing firm was fictitious, the SSI certificate was bogus and the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clause (d) and clause (o) were not applicable in that case since on the date of import, the said goods were covered by a valid import licence. He submitted that in the instant case, there was no valid import licence and the goods were not permitted to be imported under OGL. He therefore, concluded that the ratio of this judgment will also not be applicable in their case. 9. Heard the submissions of both sides. On careful consideration of the submissions made and the case-law cited and relied upon, we observe that the issues for determination before us are: (a) whether the ownership of the goods still vested in the foreign supplier or was transferred to the Indian importer; (b) whether the goods were liable to confiscation; (c) whether notice as required under Section 124 of the Customs Act was issued to the importer; and (d) whether in the circumstances of the case, the goods should be permitted to be re-shipped. 10. On the question of ownership, we observe that this issue was dealt with by this Tribunal in the case of Savitri Electronics Co. The relevant para is para 10 which is reproduced below: 10. Since the documents in favour of M/s. Savitri Ele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Having regard to these facts, we find that the goods were prohibited goods as they required a specific licence. We also observe that the goods were misdeclared in the manifest in the bill of lading and in the invoices and therefore, violation of Sections 111(d) and 111(f) is clearly established. Having regard to this violation, the goods were liable to confiscation. As no importer of the goods came forward, therefore, the goods have rightly been confiscated absolutely. 12. In the instant case, the name of the importers was given in the manifest. When no bill of entry was presented, enquiries were conducted. Enquiries revealed that no firm in the name and style of M/s. Stylo Foot Wear existed at the address given in the bill of lading. When further enquiries were conducted with the Bank of Baroda, it was found that SSI certificate claimed by the Indian importer was fictitious and bogus. Further examination of the goods revealed that the goods were described incorrectly. When all these facts were put together, it clearly shows that it was a case of fraud. We also observe that in the case of insoles for footwear, the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 224/85 was availa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
