9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ltd., Singapore, under their Invoice No. 451 of 15th July, 1980. The Assistant Collector of Customs thought that the goods had been under-invoiced and, therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 23rd January, 1981. The petitioner sought to explain to the Assistant Collector of Customs stating that they have imported the goods as per the conditions contained in the import licence and on a pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l duty amounting to Rs. 43,792.13 P. 2. As against the decision given by the Assistant Collector of Customs, the petitioners filed this petition, sometime in October, 1981. 3. It appears that in the meanwhile another oil company, viz., Liberty Oil Mills had imported from the same source the same goods and the department had proceeded against the said company more or less on the same basis and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioners pointed out that now that the Central Board of Excise and Customs has upheld the contentions of the petitioners, the same line of reasoning should be accepted and this petition should be allowed. 4. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Gursahani. Firstly, the department has not been able to show as to how the price given by the seller should not be accepted. Under Section l4(l)(a) of the Custo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is nothing to show that there is any interest in the business of each other. The petitioners had, in fact, contended that under the terms and conditions of the licence it was not open to the petitioners to vary the price and, therefore, the price had been agreed upon and on the basis thereof the licence had been taken. 5. Therefore, the department was clearly in the wrong when it proceeded o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
