TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oice value was also found to be low. Show cause notice was issued in regard to the unauthorised import and misdeclaration of value. It was contended that appellant was a small scale manufacturer of video cameras and actual user of the imported goods, that the import was not of video cameras in SKD condition attracting Entry 122 of Appendix 2 Part B but of components and sub-assemblies governed by other entries and the import of first consignment was supported by REP licence and import of goods in the other four consignments was under OGL and the invoice value was the correct value. The Deputy Collector of Customs overruled their contentions and held that the import was of complete sets of video cameras in SKD condition which required specific licence and the appellant did not produce any such valid licence for the complete sets. He also loaded the value. Accordingly confiscation was ordered, fixing redemption fine of rupees two lakhs and levying duty on the basis of the loaded value. This order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals). Hence this appeal. 2. The following are the particulars of Bills of Entry and the entitlement for import as claimed by the appellant :- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d without specific licence in the guise of separately importing components and sub-assemblies of video cameras. We will advert to the decisions relied on by the appellant and the Department. 4. The earliest decision is that of the Supreme Court in Girdharilal Bansidhar v. Union of India and Others [AIR 1964 SC 1519 = 1984 ECR 491 (SC)], a case under the Sea Customs Act. The appellant had a licence for import of iron and steel bolts, nuts, screws, studs excluding those adapted for use on cycles. He imported certain goods described as stove bolts and nuts on the strength of the licence. The goods were found to be parts of nuts and bolts of Jackson Type single bolt oval plate belt fasteners whose import had been totally prohibited by a notification in force at the time of import. The licence made it clear that it was subject to any other prohibition or notification regulating the import of goods which may be in force at the time of import. The Collector held that the import was an attempt to evade the prohibition. The court upheld the order of the Collector, observing :- ..... We cannot accede to the position that it is the intention of the Rule that importers are permitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the licence or, that the parts and accessories imported, if assembled, would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition. There were no remarks against Entry 295 as there were against Entry 294, that a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295 would not be valid for import of spares and accessories which, if assembled, would make motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition. The court held :- But the question is what have the respondents done indirectly what they could not have done directly. In the absence of any restriction in Entry 295, namely, that a licence in respect of goods covered by Entry 295 would not be valid for import of parts and accessories which, when taken together, would make them motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition, the respondents could import under their licence all kinds and types of parts and accessories. Therefore, the mere fact, that the goods imported by them were so complete that when put together would make them motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition, would not amount to a breach of the licence or of Entry 295............ Such a condition was advisedly not placed in Entry 295 but was put in Entry 294 only. The reason was that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rohibited articles as was the case there. The restriction is not against licensees importing motor cycles and scooters in CKD condition. The question in the instant case was not under which of the two Entries 294 or 295, the goods fell, but whether the goods were parts and accessories covered by Entry 295." (Emphasis supplied) 7. Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640 is another decision of the Supreme Court. Appellant started a phased manufacture of plain paper copiers and imported components and consumables in SKD/CKD condition for plain paper copiers. Three consignments were imported from Hong Kong at Bangalore and three consignments were imported from Singapore. The Collector held that the imported goods were fully finished copiers in SKD/CKD form and the declaration that the goods were only parts was a misdeclaration and the import was not permissible. It was also held that even if all the parts were viewed individually, none of the items tally with the licence. Value was held to be misdeclared and the correct value was in excess of the licence value. The Tribunal had held that one has to look into the respective licence and not to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at a time. One has to look into the respective licence. The writ peti- tioner may have purchased all the articles covered by all the licences but that cannot be a ground for withholding the goods alleging that complete TV sets have been imported. We are, therefore, unable to accept this contention ....... The Court found that goods covered by each consignment were covered by the relevant licences produced and, therefore, directed the Customs to complete the assessments and to release the goods forthwith upon payment of duty. It was further directed that the release of the goods will not prevent the authorities, if otherwise entitled to, to investigate and proceed against the writ petitioner and Export Houses according to law. It is necessary to notice that the court did not refer to any of the decisions of the Supreme Court adverted to by us. 9. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Susha Electronics Industries v. Collector of Customs and Central Excise - 1989 (39) E.L.T. 585. The appellant therein, manufacturer of colour TV sets, imported 90 pieces of colour picture tubes and 90 sets of plastic moulded components and sought clearance under OGL under Appendix 6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods were found to be parts of photo copier which make complete photo copying machine in SKD condition and not spare parts of the printing machine or photo copier. The goods were found to be old and used. Importer had no valid licence covering such old and used goods. The appellant s claim that they purchased the goods in the other Bill of Entry on High Sea Sale basis as per- mitted under ITC Policy was not accepted by the Department. Thus it was seen that the two consignments were imported in the names of two different parties. The appellant relied on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Collector of Customs v. Mitsuny Electronic Works, Calcutta - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 345 and certain decisions of the Tribunal. The Department relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640. The Tribunal held that the decisions relied on by the appellant were not applicable, that the view of the Tribunal was no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sharp Business Machines Pvt. Ltd. case - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 640. The Tribunal also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Girdharilal Ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l under the above category. 25 pieces of Cathode Ray Tube and 25 pieces of Deflection Yoke were sought to be imported against second Bill of Entry under OGL against Serial No. 565 (1) of Part I List 8 of Appendix 6, namely, Electronics items (other than those in Appendix 3 Part A) :- Cathode Ray tubes." The categories of eligible importers are actual users industrial. 25 pieces of Vidicon Tubes and 25 pieces of Deflection Coil were sought to be imported under the third Bill of Entry under OGL against Serial No. 1 of Appendix 6, namely, Raw materials, components and consumables (non-iron and steel items) other than those included in Appendices 2 and 3 Part A, 5 and 8. Categories of eligible importers are actual users industrial. 25 pieces of lenses were sought to be imported under the fourth Bill of Entry against the same item. 25 pieces of plastic body were sought to be imported under the fifth Bill of Entry under OGL against Serial No. 516 of Part I of List 8 of Appendix 6 read with Serial No. 6 of Appendix 6. We have already adverted to Serial No. 516 of Part I of List 8 of Appendix 6 which reads thus : Plastic extruded/moulded/fabricated components or products. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
