TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icate (DEC). The description of the goods in the advance licence was polyester bonded waddings having width of 110 cms. On examination the goods were, however, found to be polyester bonded waddings having width of 112 cms. instead of 110 cms. as mentioned in the invoice attached with the bill of entry and as mentioned in the advance ITC licence and DEC. Each roll had a printed chit containing roll number, length, weight and width; the width mentioned in the chit was 112 cms. in respect of each roll. Since the width of the polyester bonded waddings did not conform to that described in the ITC licence and the DEC and the invoice, they were asked to produce a valid import licence to cover import of goods and to explain for the mis-declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he department (to be treated as an appeal) with the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, the said Collector set aside the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, New Delhi on the ground that the Deputy Collector was not competent to decide the said case having regard to the value of the goods and he, therefore, ordered de novo adjudication proceedings to the adjudicating authority i.e. Collector of Customs, New Delhi. 1.4 A show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to show cause to the Addl. Collector of Customs as to why the goods be not confiscated, why difference of Customs duty amounting to Rs. 857,589.40p (Rs. 858,093.40 - 504.00) leviable thereon should not be realised from them and why penal action under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1048/C/XX/94/D/84 DT. 85/01/07 Letter of credit No.: L.c.179/636/85 dated 13th March 1985 1.500 rolls-3 x 40 feet container rolled on tubes - width 110 cms. Vacuum packets into polybag - through packing width 112 cms. Container: HLCU 427 875-8 HLCU 447 467-9 NLCO 400 726-8" It was urged that in view of the evidence supplied by the appellants and in the absence of any contrary evidence from the department, the Collector ought not to have relied merely on his own opinion. He ought to have consulted some expert s opinion before arriving at conclusions detrimental to the interest of the appellants especially when he was sitting in judgment in a remanded case and having in view more stringent demands than were there in the earlie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection to the demand of duty on the ground that the goods have been cleared on payment of redemption fine and on payment of Rs. 504/- as duty on 24-7-1985. The show cause notice demanding differential amount of duty has been issued by the Additional Collector on 3-3-1986 i.e. more than six months after the time limit stipulated in Section 28 of the Customs Act. In this view, he, therefore, submitted that the demand of duty in any case is also time barred. 3. Opposing the aforesaid contention, the learned DR has stated that the question of limitation does not arise inasmuch as the impugned order is a result of de novo proceedings in remand. The time limit should be deemed to have started from the earliest when the case was taken up for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing was not in its original shape and in any case the tag attached to it by the supplier clearly indicated the width as 112 cms. It is plausible to hold that this tag was attached to each roll at the time of packing and this clearly indicates that the wadding had the width of 112 cms. at manufacturing stage itself. The supplier could not presumably have measured the width of the wadding after packing and then attached the tag to the rolls showing 112 cms. width. Accordingly, it can not be argued that expansion in the width took place after packing or due to vacuum packing or containerisation. For the said reason, the analogy of the actual width of the sample fabric produced before me, which had a stamp of 140 cms. width, cannot be applie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods imported are not against the description given in the advance licence for the goods or against the description given in the DEEC book. The discrepancy pointed out by the department, even if it be taken on its face .value is of a very minor character and of a technical nature. The goods are substantially of the same description as were allowed to be imported to be used in the manufacture of goods to be exported. 4.1 Keeping the aforesaid facts and circumstances in view, we hold that there was no justification for confiscating the goods and demanding duty as if they are goods other than what the appellants were allowed to import and to use for manufacture of export goods. We, therefore, set aside the order and allow the appeal wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
