9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants under EPCG licence No. 0330004053, dated 7-8-2003. When the goods were sought to be cleared the inspection of the goods revealed that the description on the goods found was "Brother Industries Ltd., Nagoya, Japan" and the country of origin China was not mentioned. On the presumption that the goods amounted to misdeclaration the said importers were directed to prove their bona fide. The appellants requested for waiver of show cause notice and sought adjudication of the matter. The adjudicating authority in his Order-in-Original dated 21-10-2003 came to the conclusion that since the intimation of country of origin is required on the packages, in the absence of which the appellants have contravened the provisions of Section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were cleared by the appellants and such clearances were allowed by the Customs authorities under EPCG licence. It is also not in dispute that the EPCG licence issued to the appellants on 7-8-2003 was valid and I also find that EPCG licence at Sl. No. 8 mentions the model number of the industrial sewing machine sought to be cleared under bill of entry. It is also not in dispute that the said goods were imported from Brother International. I find the dispute is in very narrow compass that in respect of non-bearing of the country of origin on the imported goods. Section 117 of the Trade and Merchandise Act requires that Central Government by notification specify the goods on which the indication of the country of origin or place in which they ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... origin filed by the appellants, these goods should have been of Japanese origin, whereas on actual examination a part of the goods were found to be of Canadian origin. We find that the appellants had declared the origin of these goods on the basis of the certificate of origin received from the concerned Chamber of Commerce in Singapore and there is no finding that Driers of Japanese origin differ significantly in terms of quality or value from similar goods of Canadian origin, we are therefore, inclined to agree with the appellants that the violation if any, in this regard was purely technical." In view of above findings the Order-in-Appeal dated 9-9-2004 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned Order and allow the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
