9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 13-6-89 by the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi for export of 2,00,000 pcs/number of sub-assemblies containing colour picture tubes on the basis of import of colour picture tubes already arranged under REP/Additional license for flexibility provisions. Exports were to be made to USSR through ET T subject to the condition that the export product has a minimum value addition of 40% and indigenous contents are not less than 15%. The Respondent/exporter had entered into contract No. 24/29.8.05 339 , dated 26-2-88 with M/s. V/O Technointorg, USSR through for export of sub-assemblies CTV consisting of Toshiba Colour Picture Tube Model No. 51021322 TCOs completed with integrated neck components deflection yoke and corresponding to the picture tubes PCEs with socket neck components include parity magnets and degaussing coil as per buyer s design. Delivery schedule was also specified in the addendum of contract. Respondent had filed S/Bills for export of Toshiba colour picture tubes to USSR in the form in which these tubes were imported. They procured other components indigenously and sought permission to export them separately and subsequently. Respondent had not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion letter dated 13-6-89 of the licensing authority mentioned any such mounting of the picture tubes with the indigenous components to make a sub-assembly before export. The contract with M/s. Mashpriborintorg, Russian firm and invoice of the Respondent also do not suggest any such pre-condition. On the other hand there is a categorical statement in the invoice dated 15-6-89 that items may be supplied separately - which is based on the confirmatory letter dated 13-9-89 of foreign buyer. Invoice and contract provides for manufacturing of sub-assembly containing colour picture tubes for manufacturing colour TVs. Colour picture tubes along with the other components were necessarily to be supplied separately to enable the foreign buyer to manufacture colour television, as per their letter dated 8-9-89 due to non availability of empty containers and priority cargo directions of the Soviet Government. Neither para 177 nor paras 215 read with 216 of the relevant policy imposes any such export condition to make the imports illegal as alleged and inferred by the Appellants that Respondents has not fulfilled the condition of exports and so they are not entitled for import of colour picture ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... separately from indigenous parts, contrary to the permission given and thereby violated export order. Sri K.R. Balchandani the Ld. Counsel for Respondent has argued that invoking the power of review under Section 129D(1) by the Board, of the Collectors order, which is not an adjudication order is not proper as Board is not competent to review an administrative order on note sheet, as per 1988 (37) E.L.T. 610 (T) which has distinguished the contra order in 1987 (12) ECR, P. 490. The impugned order of the Collector is not an appealable one under section 129D, for which it is necessary that Collector should have communicated to the Respondent. Board cannot exercise the power of review under Section 129D(1) of the Customs Act. Appeal goes beyond the direction in Section 129D order. There is no reference to import and held as illegal. 1995 (79) E.L.T. 131 is relied on. The appeal is barred by time as the impugned order is dated 27-7-89 and review order is 1-8-90 and appeal is filed on 31-10-90 beyond 3 months. On merits, board goes by implication that the sub-assembly has to be mounted, whereas permission shows otherwise. In the course of reply, Ld. DR has urged that Collectors order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner of Appeals as the case may be, as if such applications were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and provisions of the Act regarding the appeals including the provision of 129D(4) shall, so far as may be, apply to such application. From the plain reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that more stress is laid on the proceeding in which Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under the Act. The Ld. DR tried his best in the reply arguments to bring the impugned order in the note sheet as an order passed as an adjudicating authority by contending, that the representation of the respondent was considered and he was given an opportunity to explain the case and there was a dispute existing between the parties and considered order or decision is made and Respondent was communicated the same. How far this can be accepted is to be considered. 7. Perusal the impugned order shows that the DC put up the note, and marked to Collector on 27-7-89, who has endorsed that Party s representative met me today and explained - separate note - export may be allowed On 27-7-89. On 28-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
