9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 316X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rly. Rolling Stock) consisting of two types in quantities of 457 and 35 pieces respectively was imported and assessed to duty under Heading 63(28) FN ICT vide Bill of Entry GSI No. 224, dated 13-6-1974. A claim for re-assessment on two counts (1) on revised c.i.f. value and weight and (2) as loco parts under ICT 72(3)/72(a) at 40%. Since the Bill of Lading No. 44 was not declared in the Bill of Entry, which only mentioned. Bill of Lading No. 42 and the only evidence produced is the supplier s letter that they are forwarding the revised invoice cancelling the earlier invoice dated 30-3-1974 is considered incomplete inasmuch as it is not substantiated why the value had to be amended, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim. Before the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as the weight which needed amendment to the original invoice. Accordingly, a revised invoice showing the correct consignment as actually shipped was obtained and is submitted along with the original invoice, the supplier s letter, as well as the Local Agent s letter. The amended weight according to the revised invoice is awaited from the suppliers. The ten days notice issued on 27-6-1977 mentioned by the Appellate Collector was not received and hence the appellant was not aware of any information required by him till the rejection order was received. Regarding re-assessment under Item 72(3)/72(a), the ultimate user has furnished the cost of machining for finishing purposes namely 4.5% of the c.i.f. value for type 361, 4.55% for type 409. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as manufacture of iron or steel but as components of locomotives. 5. Shri Kunhikrishnan, after looking into the documents, agreed that on the basis of the revised invoice, the claim for re-assessment on the value of goods actually received would be admissible. The difference in duty would, however, have to be ascertained by the Assistant Collector. As regards the second ground, the Departmental Representative strongly argued against it. Under the ICT there was no provision corresponding to the Interpretative Rule under the CTA regarding classification of an incomplete or unfinished article in the same manner as the finished article, if it has its essential character. Hence it was the practice to treat semi-finished steel articles as suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
