9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.P. Singh, Advocate, was heard on 10-8-1993 on behalf of Shri Jasbir Singh. Thereafter the matter stood referred to the applicant Collector for some clarifications which are still not given completely. 3.Briefly stated goods worth Rs. 1,03,000/- (including 87 kgs. tool bits valued at Rs. 87,000/-) were confiscated in this case but allowed to be redeemed for home consumption on a fine of Rs. 25000/- and a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. At appeal stage, the tool bits were allowed to be assessed at Rs. 400/- per kg. (bringing the value of goods to Rs. 34,800/-. ) and allowed to be re-exported on a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The personal penalty was also reduced to Rs. 2,500/-. 4.In the review proposal, the applicant Collector has challenged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper appreciation of facts. After three reminders a copy of letter addressed by the Additional Collector, Customs House, to Additional Collector, IGI Airport was received requesting for sending requisite information to the revisionary authority (one wonders why revisionary authority be involved in such intra-Customs House correspondence.). After further two reminders an interim reply was received in which it is mentioned that at the IGI Airport tool bits were being valued at Rs. 120/- per kg. in view of Government's orders-in-revision No. 242/244 dated 22-6-1993 and that prior to the same these were being valued at Rs. 1.50 to Rs. 5.00 per piece depending upon size and where the tool bits were in large quantities the same were being value ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcept in a few cases that came before the Government where the brand YG. 15 has been mentioned, no details of tool bits are being mentioned. If that be so one fails to appreciate how can an appellate authority distinguish between the goods which are subject matter of a given appeal vis-a-vis those in precedent cases, quoted by a party, where the goods have already been cleared on lower valuation. There being no distinguishing features available on paper between the two lots, it is difficult for Collector (Appeals) to resist party's plea. But more importantly this shows the review proposal in this case had been made on hypothetical or theoretical basis, and on mere generalities (that the valuation of a thing will depend on its quality, brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
