9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Appellant is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no representation and no request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers. 2. Appellant imported a consignment of 50,000 pieces of condensor mike (Microphone Cartridge) and submitted invoice dated 18-1-1990 showing the price as HK $ 90 per 1000 pieces and Bill of Entry dated 22-1-1997 showing the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, the goods were confiscated under clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Collector passed the impugned order on the above basis, but allowing redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000.00 and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.00. This order is now challenged. 3. The appellant does not dispute that no licence was actually produced before the customs auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pared to the supplies made by the manufacturers themselves. 5. According to the appellant, the subject goods were unbranded, while the subject matter of the compared import had the brand name "National", a well-know and well-established brand in international trade. It is also pointed out that appellant sent letter dated 31-10-1990 to the Assistant Collector of Customs pointing out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t page 16 is a copy of the letter dated 5-1-1990 of the supplier who acknowledged letter dated 28-12-1989 of the appellant. In this letter the suplier considered the appellant's offer of HK$ 90.00 per 1000 pieces and indicated acceptance of the offer. The impugned order does not dispute the genuineness of these letters. There does not appear to be any reason not to act on these two letters of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e price or to confiscate the goods under Section 111(m) of the Act. 6. Under these circmstances, we set aside the part of the order enhancing the price and confiscating the goods under Section 111(m) of the Act and quantifying the redemption fine and penalty as Rs. 1,00,000.00. We hold that the price declared should be accepted. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is confirmed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
