9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (6) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the case does not involve any question having relation to the rate of duty or value of the goods for the purposes of assessment but in the Appeal Memorandum questions relating to valuation appear to have been raised. 3. The learned Counsel clarified that though they were aggrieved with the valuation and had mentioned that point but they do not intend to press the same and the matter may be heard by this Bench. 4. He added that he would however, like to raise preliminary point regarding jurisdiction of the Collector of Customs, Bombay in view of the facts of this case. 5. It was his submission that they had placed order for importation of shoddy wool of given specifications and it was to be sent to Delhi via Bombay i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hipment on 8-7-1985. 11. But before the goods could be actually transhipped after unloading they were detained and samples were tested and a show cause notice was issued on 18-12-1985 alleging inter alia mis-declaration and liability to confiscation on various grounds. 12. According to the Department the consignment was described as one of shoddy wool waste but in fact contained 80% synthetic waste or synthetic fibre and there was mis-declaration regarding description and value and the importation was not covered by OGL. 13. It was his contention that a declaration under the Customs Act means a declaration on the Bill of Entry upon importation but no such Bill of Entry had been filed or was required to be filed at this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and synthetic waste was taken into account, it will be seen that only supplier stood to gain by supplying cheaper goods in place of costlier ones and not the importer and no motive could be attributed to him. This apart, the import of shoddy wool was permissible under OGL. Further they had correctly declared the value in the light of their agreement and contract with the supplier and the documents exchanged with the latter. 19. It was also his contention that there was no concealment involve. 20. It was also his submission that Section 112 has been mentioned the Show Cause Notice but neither sub-clause (a) nor sub-clause (b) had been mentioned and therefore, the Notice is defective and not a proper Show Cause Notice. 21. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olation of the Customs Act and Import Trade Control Order. He also drew attention to the discussion and findings in the Collector's order. 27. Learned DR also cited and relied upon the order of the WRB No. 1448-50/91/WRB, dated 31-7-1991. 28. Learned Counsel reiterated that it was a case of wrong supply and not, in any eventuality, a case of mis-declaration. They neither intended to evade duty nor violate Customs Act/ITC and he would like to emphasise that even the Certificate of Composition had been insisted upon and it shows shoddy wool of U.K. origin. 29. He also submitted that WRB's order is distinguishable as the appellants have not abandoned the goods in this case. 30. Further, although they are not pressin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion made in the application for transhipment permit also becomes a declaration for the purpose of the Customs Act and is required to be made correctly in all respects including description, quantity, value etc. and upon filing such an application, the importer assumes all those responsibilities which are cast upon such importers (or their agents) under the Customs Act. 35. We also observe that the appellants have not produced any correspondence exchanged with the supplier which would go to show that they had protested against a wrong supply and claimed damages and/or the supply was accepted as a wrong supply by the seller and he had agreed to compensate the appellant. We also note the DR's submission that the bank documents have not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
