9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (6) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time. The said entry is quoted below : "44. Paper—all sorts not otherwise specified, nature of duty, revenue, Standard rate of duty—39 3/8% ad valorem". The foot note to the said Entry 44 is as under :— "Under Government of India, Finance Department (Central Revenues), Notification No. 33, dated 22nd June, 1935 as amended subsequently, the following classes of Printing paper containing mechanical wood pulp amounting to not less than 70% of the fibre content are exempt from payment of so much of the import duty as is in excess of the amount mentioned against each : (1) News print in reels, unglazed or machine finished, Re. 1—9-1/5 per cwt. (2) Newsprint in reels, other sorts Re. 1—13-3/5 per cwt. (3) All sorts not in reels (exclusive of chrome, marble, flint, poster, stereo and art paper). White or grey ......... Rs. 2—1 3/5 per cwt." 2.The petitioner company filed two bills of entry, on November 8, 1952, giving therein the description of goods as hereinbefore stated and stating therein that the goods were assessable to duty under item 3 of the footnote to entry 44 of the Indian Customs Tariff. 3.On the basis of the bill of entry, the Customs Authorities allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he charge sheet or at any time thereafter, as it should have been done. In the adjudication proceeding that followed, it was held that the petitioner company were guilty of misdeclaration of the two consignments, they being really assessable to 39—3/8 per cent duty as writing paper and it was ordered that the petitioner company be penalised with personal penalties respectively amounting to Rs. 12,400/- and 13,750/- for the two consignments of paper. The order imposing a personal penalty of Rs.12,400/- bears the date October 27, 1955 and the order imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 13,750/- bears the date November 12, 1955. 5.The petitioner company had in the meantime paid up the further duty assessed on the two consignments under protest. It also paid up the personal penalties under similar protest. Thereafter, the petitioner company preferred two appeals against the orders imposing higher rate of duty and the orders imposing personal penalties before the Central Board of Revenue. The Central Board of Revenue, by two orders, respectively dated October 18, 1956 and March 9, 1957 upheld the Assistant Collector's decision that the bales of paper, imported by the petitioner company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O.G.L. XXV as 'Soft size' paper claiming assessment at lower rate of Rs. 2-2-3/5 u/i 44 I.C.T. could not be admitted. In the absence of valid I.T.C. licence the importation is, therefore, held to be unauthorised. The goods worth Rs. 27,528/-, therefore, appear to have been imported in contravention of Govt. of India M.O.C. Industry's order No. 17/55 read with sec. 3(1) of the Import Export Control Act. You are called upon to show cause within 7 days from the date of issue why penal action should not be taken against you under section 167(8) S.C.A. READ WITH SEC. (2) of the Import Export Control Act. You are also asked to state whether you would require to be heard in person. All corroborative evidence in support of your explanation should be furnished along with your explanations. A copy of the final test report is enclosed herewith." Sd/- B. Barman, A.C.A.4/ X" 6.The petitioner company dispute the validity of the charge writing. Notwithstanding all that the Assistant Collector of Customs came to the conclusion that the paper in question was hard sized paper, fit for being used as writing paper. His conclusions were identical in both the proceedings and hereinbelow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n orders and for a Writ of Mandamus on the respondents to cancel the same and obtained this Rule. 7.During the pendency of the Rule, the petitioner company applied for amendment of the petition on which this Rule was issued, by incorporating therein a prayer for a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from giving effect to the notice of demand, dated January 19, 1953. That prayer was not allowed. 8.Mr. S. Roy, learned Advocate for the petitioner company argued two points in support of the Rule. He contended, in the first place, that the Assistant Collector of Customs was wrong in taking into consideration certain 'market enquiries', the nature of which was never disclosed to the petitioner company and as such violated the principles of natural justice. He contended, in the next place, that the demand for short-levy was barred by limitation under section 39 of the Customs Act. Mr. G.P. Kar, learned Advocate for the respondents, very fairly conceded that the Assistant Collector of Customs was wrong in proceeding on the basis of 'market enquiries', the nature of which had not been divulged to the petitioner and which the petitioner company had no opportunity to controvert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the strength of the report, since the percentage of mechanical wood pulp content and the weight per square metre determined in test were not at variance with those declared in the relative bill of entry. The nature of sizing of the paper was not, however, determined in the said test. On detection of this irregularity on a subsequent date, coupled with the fact that no enquiry to ascertain the use of the paper had been carried out before release, a demand was issued on 19-1-1953 under section 39 of the Sea Customs Act to cover the difference in duty that would have occurred had the said paper been assessed at the rate of 39.3/8% ad valorem under item 44 I.C.T. The remnant sample was, thereafter, sent for re-test to ascertain the nature of sizing of the paper in question. Re-test of the paper revealed that it was hard sized. It was also found from enquiries made in the trade that such papers were ordinarily used as writing paper and not for printing purposes. The assessment of the paper under item 44 of the Indian Customs Tariff @ 39.3/8% ad valorem as writing paper, other parts, was confirmed with consequential realisation of extra duty on this consignment, which the importers pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
