9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act on Omprakash Hemrajani, its Managing Director. In the order impugned in these appeals, the Commissioner has held these goods liable to confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lakhs on Om Prakash Hemrajani. 2. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the departmental representative at length. 3. These 300 units, which were appear to have consisted of a mother board, a hard disc and random access memory (RAM) were imported by the company, a unit in the export processing zone (EPZ) in terms of the provisions of Paragraphs 94 and 115 of the policy (as it stood in March, 1995). Paragraph 94 permitted such units to import free of duty all types of goods, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and other conditions contained therein. On importation of these 300 units, the importer had executed a bond. 5. The notices issued to the importer and Om Prakash Hemrajani proposed to demand duty on the ground that the condition under the notification had not been complied with. It alleged that the activity that the importer undertook was not covered by Paragraph 115(1)(B) of the Export Policy. The bond executed by the appellant did not specify serial no. 14 of the schedule to the notification which refers to re-engineering. The notice alleged that there was a separate provision in Paragraph 115(2) for re-engineering for which permission has not been obtained. It alleged that the value declared of each of these units at US $ 1000 was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter given by the authority in implementing the import policy with regard to the appellant should not be accepted. The only reason the Commissioner gives for not accepting is that it has been issued by this authority in order to get the appellant out of a tight situation. This appears to us to cast unwarranted expression upon the Joint Development Commissioner. 7. Apart from this, we find that the definition of manufacture in the policy was extremely wide. The definition at the relevant time included such processes as refrigeration, repacking, polishing, labelling and segregation. If such simple processing as repacking, polishing, labelling and segregation were considered as manufacture, it is difficult to see why upgrading of a comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I and that Tangerine Infomatique Ltd. was in that category. The Commissioner does not deny this. He however finds that while the order for the goods was placed on the Singapore firm by Tangerine Infomatique Ltd., the consignee was the appellant, located in SEEPZ, which is an associated company. We do not see how this fact precludes the availability of the lower price. The payment for the goods was made to the foreign supplier by Tangerine Infomatique Ltd. who would in turn recover the price from its sister concern. In that situation, we do not see either in law or in commerce the appellant would not be entitled to the benefit of lower price. Therefore, there would be no misdeclaration of value. We also note that even if such misdeclaration, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
