9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent herein on 13-4-1989, stating that the company misdeclared the value of the goods with the intention of evading the duty and as such the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Though no reply was filed, the petitioner company requested for personal hearing. After giving an opportunity the Addl. Collector of Customs, Madras by Order dated 5-5-1989 confiscated the goods revalued at Rs. 1,39,646.64 but however released the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5,000/- but refrained from taking any penal action and dropped the charge. Under these circumstances, the petitioner company is before this court praying for extending the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 208/81 as amended from tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se decided on 25-11-1998 by P. Sathasivam, J. in South Indian Surgical Co. Pvt. Ltd. Madras v. The Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras (W.P. No. 4834 of 1989, dated 25-11-1998) clarified the position that Butterfly needle G Infusion Sets, only fall under Item 44 and as such it is not open to the petitioner to say that 'Infusion Sets' has a separate items under Entry 44 as per clarification letter dated 6-6-1985 issued by the Director General of Health Services, New Delhi. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submits that by order dated 25-6-1991 the petitioner was directed to clear the case on payment of redemption fine and by offering bank guarantee for Rs. 75,000/- and despite the extended time up to 2-7-1991 they have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner neither replied to the same nor challenged the same at the relevant point of time. The petitioner was allowed to participate in the enquiry and has accepted to pay the duty. No adequate reason has been assigned as to why it had not raised the contention by way of filling a reply, and now chooses to agitate the issue only at this stage, before this Court. It is also to be seen that because of the subsequent clarification order dated 3-3-1985 as observed by P. Sathasiva, J., the article claimed by the petitioner is this case, will not fall under Entry 44, so as to attract the benefit of exemption under Entry 44. 8. What particular item has been imported at one point of time is to be considered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
