TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the case of the Department as well as that of the respondent and taking into consideration the entire material, concurrently arrived at the conclusion that the importation in question was in conformity with the terms of import licence. The argument of the Department that an adverse inference in regard to the legality of the import should be drawn, itself based on certain inferences like the excess production by the respondent, was considered and for reasons recorded not accepted, and we are not inclined to disagree with the same. The question as to the jurisdiction of an authority in deciding as to the legality of importation based on the description of the goods imported is well-settled. See Union of India v. Tara Chand Gupta Bros. [ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice dated 10-2-1987 calling upon the respondent to show cause was issued on the following grounds : (a) Why the entire PFY plant installed at Patalganga by misdeclaration of more than twice the declared licensed capacity unauthorisedly imported by them, should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962; (b) Why the four additional spinning machine lines with 32 positions having 8 ends per position unauthorisedly imported and installed at the PFY plant in Patalganga by misdeclaration, should not be deemed confiscable under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 and why penalty should not be imposed upon M/s. RIL under Section 112 of the said Act; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt of 4 additional spinning machine lines with 32 positions having 8 ends per position i.e. allegation (b) in para 26 of the Show Cause Notice; (d) Issue relating to the valuation of the PFY Plant at Patalganga i.e. allegation (c) in para 26 of the Show Cause Notice; (e) Issue relating to the valuation and assessment of duty or the 4 additional spinning machines vide allegations made in para 26(d) of the Show Cause Notice; (f) Issue relating to the confiscation of the plant and imposition of penalty in respect of allegations contained in (e) of para 26 of the Show Cause Notice; (g) Related issues, if any, which may flow from any of the above allegations or evidence noticed in the course of the adjudication proceedings which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved by the respondent had not exceeded the plant capacity. In the light of the above finding, he directed that the value of the Screw Pump Motor and the Booster Pump Motor be appraised by the Assistant Collector of Customs in charge of the Project Import Cell and evaluate the same and directed that the value so appraised should form the basis of the duty assessment at the project contract rate under Heading 84.66 CTA, 1975. He further directed that the value of dismantling charges amounting to US $ 1.55 million be added to the assessable value of the last consignment imported as part of the reconditioned equipment under the C.G. Licence 2970355, dated 29-11-1984 under Heading 84.66 CTA, 1975. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... what would have been possible if the import was in accordance with the terms of the licence. That fact itself, according to the Department, was conclusive of the allegation that the respondent had imported machinery which were, in fact, not permitted under the licence granted to them. In other words, the respondent contends before us that the Tribunal and the Collector failed to notice the logical inference that what was permitted under the licence was the importation of such machinery as was necessary for achieving the sanctioned production but the respondent has imported machinery for production of PFY much in excess of the sanctioned production. Therefore, the import is in contravention of the licence. 10. We have perused the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Department in this appeal has made out a case which calls for interference by this Court with the orders passed by the authorities below. The question whether the machinery imported by the respondent pursuant to the import licence granted to it is in accordance with the terms of import licence granted or not, is primarily a question of fact that is for the fact-finding authorities below and the Tribunal to decide. Their decision on technical matters as to what could be imported and what was imported must prevail. The authorities below and the Tribunal, after considering the case of the Department as well as that of the respondent and taking into consideration the entire material, concurrently arrived at the conclusion that the import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
