9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (3) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e were liable to confiscation but he has conceded that no definite evidence has been brought out by the defence to prove the case of undervaluation and accordingly this allegation was taken by him as not proved. 2. In the appeal it has been inter alia contended that the firm has been set up by an Engineering Graduate who had qualified in the field of Electronics in the U.S.A. and the firm had started manufacturing video cassette recorders out of the components permitted to be imported. Many of the video cassette recorders manufactured in this manner were also disposed of in the home market. Four consignments were imported permitting manufacture of 40+15 complete video cassette recorders and all these were manufactured and disposed of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lants and cleared through the Customs. These were sets of plastic moulded housing for video, tape deck mechanism for video, plastic parts for video etc. Subsequent to the seizure two other importations had been affected and these are of colour picture tubes for video monitor and sub-assembly for video monitors. Out of the first six importations only video cassette recorders were assembled and manufactured. The parts required for the video were only plastic moulded housing and the tape deck mechanism whereas for the monitors other parts were required. He explained that because of this all the parts shown in the import licence were not imported initially. The Collector has however, wrongly concluded that the importations effected by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the appellants that at the initial stages they were merely concentrating on video cassette recorders and not on monitors. That way the absence of importations of some of the components mentioned in the import licence has been satisfactorily explained. As the goods have been cleared under the Customs Act and the orders of clearance have not been set aside on the basis of review proceedings it was also not correct for the Collector to draw up separate proceedings ignoring those orders of assessment and clearance. Even on merits no case has been made out to show that the importations were such as were not covered by the import. The orders of confiscation u/s 111(m) of the Customs Act are also wrong as the charge of under valuation has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
