9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (8) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,000 watches in the first, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th year of progressive production programme and for the purpose were permitted to import components in CKD condition without foreign brand names. The appellants were also permitted to import 10,000 pieces each of cases and dials without foreign brand names, being 50% of the number of watches to be manufactured in the first year of their manufacturing programme. They were permitted only to import permissible items of components in CKD condition as provided for in the Import Trade Control Policy in operation, as per Development Commissioner, New Delhi s letter No. 13(38) 79/MMI dated 13-2-1980. The appellants had also obtained an Excise licence for manufacture of wrist watches. The appellants imported by post through 15 pareels which were claimed to be components of watch parts as per the details set out in Annexure E, beginning the period September, 1979 to September, 1981. Relevant import licence numbers and dates are set out in Annexure-B of the Order-in-Original. The pareels were opened by the Customs and examined. The appellants claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 240-Cus., dated 30-12-1978 at the time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants M/s. Rajasthan Watch Manufacturers, Jaipur (hereinafter called M/s. Rajasthan) are also registered Small Scale Industrial Unit with the Directorate of Industries, Jaipur for manufacture of wrist watches as per phased production programme approved by the Development Commissioner Small Scale Industries, New Delhi. This appellants Unit was required to manufacture number of watches as set out in Development Commissioner s letter dated 8-5-1975. They had also obtained a Central Excise Licence for the manufacture of wrist watches. They imported between July, 1979 to June, 1980, 10 pareels containing components of watches as set out in Annexure-A to the Order of the Collector. The description of Import Licences in appellants favour numbering 10 are set out in Annexure-B to the said order. The appellants at the time of import claimed concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 240-Cus., dated 30-12-1978, which was accepted and clearance made on that basis. The Revenue authorities on examination of Appendix-18 register, maintained by the appellants found the same suspicious as part of it had been obliterated. The Revenue authorities on scrutiny of the appellants, papers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty would commence running only after appellants satisfied the Customs authorities of fulfilment of conditions stipulated under Notification No. 240-Cus., dated 30-12-1978. When his attention was drawn to the fact that in this case no provisional assessment had been done and in absence of the same and proof of suppression or mis-statement or fraud, the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Vikas Watch Case on shorter time-limit of six months under Section 28 of the Act would be applicable, he had no comments to make. He also attempted to argue that it was a case of review by Collector of the assessment under Section 13D of the Customs Act, 1962 and time for the same would begin to run only after appellants satisfied the authorities about the fulfilment of conditions under the Notification. However, when his attention was drawn to the orders of the Collector negativing such plea, he threw off his hands and stated that he had no comments to make. He however generally defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. 6. Taking up first the charge of mis-declaration against the appellants M/s. Taito, we have gone through 19 invoices of subject goods imported by this appellant. Invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities, one would expect the Customs authorities to make a suitable note of the same in the examination reports and not allow the clearances of the goods. We have already pointed out above, that there is no allegation of collusion between the appellants and the officers of the Customs or even any allegation of negligence on their part. The appellants have filed photostat copies of the examination reports running into 15 pages as Annexure `K to the Paper Book (page 72 to 85 including page 76A). By way of abundant precaution, we have examined these examination reports also. At page 72 bearing No. 91910/4/70 watch movements 800 sets are described as CKD, at page 73 bearing No. 102076/79 (rest is not clear) watch movements are described to be in CKD, page 74 does not refer to movements, at page 75 bearing No. 11796/1000 components are also movements against both the items in circle CKD is mentioned, in the note 2000 components is followed by the word movements in bracket with recommendation for release. At page 76, there is no reference to movements but only to watch parts and components. At page 76A against Number 13235 to 13237/4/ 80, there are two entries 1000 movements plus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, were cleared after physical verification and at that time no objection was raised that they did not tally with the invoices or that they did not conform to Import Licences, in view of these reports read alongwith the invoices and in absence of any allegation that there was collusion between the appellants and the Customs Officers, it would have to be held that the appellants had not imported watch movements. Even the learned Collector in para 18 of the order has observed that Watch movements may not have been a banned item under the Import Policy for the relevant year but added that it cannot be denied by the pary that watch movements were not covered by the Import Licence produced. We have also gone through the examination reports in the case of M/s. Rajasthan. In Annexure K to the Memo. of appeal at pages 67 to 76 in 10 pages. At page 67 against JFP 24306/7/79, the report is 1000 sets of components of watch movements. At page 68, there is reference to movements at 6 places and against each of them the initials CKD are written. At page 69, there is a reference to movements at 4 places and at each place the words components and CKD are written. At page 70 for 5 T.P. Numbers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r permitting clearance for home consumption was made under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. It also appears that except as hereinafter stated that no provisional assessment of duty under Section 18 of the Act was made. In Vikash Watch Manufacturing Company s case, the Bench while considering the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 240-Cus., dated 30-12-1978 inter alia relying on Delhi High Court decision in Jain Shudh Vanaspati Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. - 1982 E.L.T. (43) (Delhi) held that in such cases the Customs authorities themselves having not made provisional assessment under Section 18 of the Act cannot urge that limitation for differential duty should run only after the Importer has satisfied the Customs authorities that they have fulfilled the conditions of the Notification. It was further held that Tribunal could not invent the concept of deemed provisional assessment and that in such cases limitation applicable would be 6 months from the date of payment of duty. 11. In M/s. Taito s case the learned Collector in paras 27 and 33 of the order has observed Import of watch parts (dials and cases in excess was not in order). Dials were impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
