9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following Order : 3. M/s. Rajan Trading Company [since named Rajan Universal Exports (Mfrs.) Private Ltd.], hereinafter referred to as the Company respondents in No. 203/81 and appellants in No. 37/82 imported 41 pallets containing 776 cartons of ball roller and taper roller bearing valued at ₹ 4,72,516/- from Australia and claimed their clearance against licence No. P/L 2893196/C/XX/71/C/79/F. 13, dated 11-4-1979. The licence was one transferred in favour of the respondents, the goods being of Russian origin, and shipped as per instructions from Company s suppliers in Japan, from Australia where they were lying for over seven years, the goods having been originally packed in Russia between 1968 and 1972. The order has been concluded on the basis of two stock lists Nos. 1 and 2 sent by the Japanese suppliers. The lists refer to various taper bearing with their code number, the individual quantity available for sale being in odd numbers (and not multiples of ten or of dozens and the like). However, the price quoted is per piece and the lists contain an entry prices shown are for one lot and goods will be shipped from any Australian port to Indian port. In a covering let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Board should not be set aside for reasons set out in para 4 of memo P. No, 374/27/81-Cus. II, dated 4-8-1981. The Company sent a reply to Government. At this stage the proceedings have been transferred to the Tribunal for disposal in terms of Section 131B of the Act. 4. The facts relating to Appeal No. 37/82 in which M/s. Rajan Universal Exports (Mfrs.) Private Ltd. are appellants, referred to herein as Company , are more or less the same except they refer to 8 strapped pallets ball roller and taper roller bearings, valued at ₹ 4,72,516/-, the present goods being the balance of goods remaining after the shipment referred to in the earlier paragraphs had been effected. Here too the Collector felt that the goods imported are disposal goods and hence not covered by a valid licence. He accordingly confiscated the goods but allowed them to be redeemed on payment of a fine of ₹ 50.000/- in lieu of confiscation. The Company have come up in appeal against the order of the Collector before the Tribunal direct. In the appeal the Company have urged that the goods being on par with one dealt with earlier by the Board, which set aside the order of. the Collector in the first ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods were disposed of as stock list 1 and the price was for the whole lot. Though the quotations are on the basis of stock list (emphasis supplied) it has been presumed from this that they form a stock lot and thereafter an inference drawn that they constitute disposal goods. There is no warrant for such a deduction. What is indicated in the stock list is that the price given is for the whole lot. But there was a proviso that the minimum order should be for not less than $3.000/-. It would indicate that a person can choose quantities constituting a total value of not less than $3,000/- from the stock list. Hence the plea that the goods have been sold as scrap and in a lot is not supported by evidence. The question of value being of a lower order than that of comparable goods is not set out in the show cause notice by citing the basis for such a statement. On the basis of a comparative statement filed in Court, it was indicated that in the case of 10 items at least the price paid by the Company was higher than the prevailing price of Russian goods as offered by the agents. Parry s (Eastern) Pvt. Ltd. In the case of bearings age is no criterion. At the time of their manufacture, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7/82, the Advocate for the Company mentioned that there was a total profit of about ₹ 23,109/- or so in the transaction to the Japanese buyer. While reiterating what has been said in respect of the earlier case, he relied on the judgment of the Bombay High Court referred to above and contended that the present goods cannot be treated as disposal goods. In fact he urged that the reference in the show cause notice to the earlier consignment which has been the subject-matter of proceedings before the Collector, prejudiced the case of the party in that all the factors have not been set out fully again. Responding, the SDR queried whether the profit made by the Japanese Company was substantial enough considering the total value of the transaction. He found nothing wrong in the show cause notice referring to the earlier case and relying on points already made in the proceedings. 10. We have considered the arguments of both the parties. In both these proceedings the point for decision is whether goods which were packed in Russia 7-8 years prior to their being imported into the country, taken to Australia, kept there for a while and shipped from there to India on the basis of a co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
