9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t amount to abuse or misuse of their power. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. We find no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng as follows :- "From the above it follows that the value of identical goods right from 1989 to the relevant date viz, on which the impugned goods are imported is around 1159 Japanese yen per 100 pieces. We, therefore, hold that the assessable value of the impugned goods should be fixed at 1159 Japanese Yen. Since, there is an under-valuation to the extent indicated above, the appellants are liable to pay the difference in duty on the enhanced value. We also direct the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 25,000/-." 3. The appellant filed a rectification application before CEGAT to the extent as indicated in the order dated 20-12-1999 [1993 (65) E.L.T. 414 (Tribunal) holding as under :- "On a consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount. Consequently, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition contending, inter alia, that the goods should be released without payment of the demurage amount. Our attention has been drawn to the claims made in the writ petition. On going through the same, we find that the only prayer that was sought for in the same was against the Air Port Authority of India. In the said writ petition no relief was sought for as against the Customs authorities by the appellant. 5. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that subsequently an application was filed before the learned Single Judge praying for amendment of the writ petition but he is not in a position to state if the aforesaid amendment was allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urrage for the period of detention of the goods and, therefore, in our opinion demurrage charges shall be payable and at this stage in the appellate proceedings we are not required to ascertain as to whether the Customs Department was at fault or not. In support we may also appropriately refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in International Airport Authority v. Grand Slam International reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 753 (S.C.) = JT 1995 (2) SC 452 wherein the Supreme Court has declared the law as follows :- "66. From the above decisions of this Court, it becomes clear that an authority created under a statute even if it is the custodian of the imported goods because of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1961, would be entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
