9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for supply to the Indian Railways under contract entered between the appellant and Ministry of Railways (Railway Board). The arrangement of points and crossings with lead rails by means of which rolling stock may be diverted from one track to another is called "railway turn out". The goods were imported in dismantled condition for shipment purpose. They were to be assembled and joined together and fitted on the railway track at site. For the fitment of the points and crossings i.e., the turn outs, exact quantity of bolts and nuts etc. and switch operating mechanism for changing the track were imported against the two Bills of Entry which have formed the basis of the impugned order. 1.2 It is also stated that a consolidated value was o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regarding the goods under Sl. No. (a) in para 1.5 above valued at Rs. 3,99,76,341.00, it was alleged that the appellant did not fulfil the requirement of registration of the contract with the concerned authority. It was therefore alleged that the goods mentioned in para Nos. 1.7 and 1.8 above are liable to confiscation and the appellant was liable to penalty. 1.9 On adjudication, the adjudicating authority namely Collector (Judicial) has confiscated the aforesaid goods holding :- (i) Switch operating mechanism is capital goods as defined in para 7(11) of the I.T.C. Policy 1990-93 and are permissible non-OGL goods within the meaning of para 7(12). In the absence of a valid license, it is liable to confiscation under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e articles of iron and steel falling under Chapter 73 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Competent authorities, therefore, advised the appellant to seek clarification from the Department of Steel. This was not followed up because the appellant required the goods urgently. Ld. Advocate, however, submitted that in view of the clarification from the competent authorities, rails should not be confiscated. 3.1 Ld. JDR, Shri R.K. Roy reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority. He submits that in response to Appraising Group's query, the appellant or his agent (C.H.A.) made the necessary correction and categorised all the goods into three different groups. They cannot now go back on that categorisation and urge that the goods importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... railway authorities. Some 'photograph' has been produced which does not throw much light on the plea made by the ld. Advocate for the appellant. 4.2 As regards confiscation of rails, we find sufficient force in the pleas of the ld. Advocate. The appellant did take up the matter with the concerned authority competent to the register the contract. But the reply received from the said authority indicated that the goods were not required to be registered. Customs authority apparently did not agree to the said view. The competent authority advised the appellant to seek a clarification from the Department/Ministry of Steel. We also observe that the adjudicating authority has also characterised the non-registration of contract as merely a t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
