9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lies imported required a licence under ITC (HS) Classifications which was not produced. Hence they were issued with show cause notice alleging evasion of duty and also they were alleged that the item is music system classifiable under Heading 8520.33 and the goods were valued at Rs. 37,43,969/- as against the assessment of Rs. 31,57,915/-. It was alleged that they had misdeclared the SKD parts of audio system as parts/components and not as audio system in SKD condition. The Commissioner of Customs in his findings has recorded as follows :- 2. We have heard ld. Consultant Shri C. Rajasimha for the appellants and Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, ld. SDR, for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Consultant submitted that the items are all parts and not music s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of Rule 2(a) of General Rules of Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Hence under ITC (HS) Classifications of the EXIM Policy, they had acquired the essential character of audio system and they were to be treated as only fully finished audio system classifiable under Heading 8520.33. She contended that as the appellants had clearly misdeclared the item as components, when in fact they were in SKD condition, they were rightly ordered for confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty. She relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 (S.C.) wherein the goods which were imported in SKD/CKD condition in the guise of parts and accessories were hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the car has been imported in CKD/SKD condition, it is to be treated as inputs for fully assembled car and these two judgments prevail over in the present case. The Apex Court's judgment rendered in the case of CC, New Delhi v. Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) which pertained to import of printing books and printed manuals and has no applicability to the facts of the present case. Likewise the judgment rendered in Award Electronics v. CC, Chennai (supra) is also distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of this case. We find that the fine and penalty imposed is not on the higher side requiring interference in view of high value of the goods. There is no merit in the appeal and hence it is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
