1987 (6) TMI 217

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en the appellants had addressed a letter dated 6-5-1987 requiring the Tribunal to hear the matter on merits. Having regard to the said letter the departmental representative was heard and the records were perused. 3. The subject matter of challenge in this appeal is the imposition of fine of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of confiscation for the import of spares along with capital goods. 4. The appellants imported super finishing machinery with spares and accessories. The value of the spares and machineries imported by the appellants exceeded the permissible limit by Rs. 44,651/-. The Dy. Collector who adjudged confiscation held that the spares imported are in excess of permissible limit of 5% allowed under OGL and therefore liable to confiscat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e capital goods. But in the instant case it exceeded 5% limit and as such the authorities below are justified in passing the orders impugned in this appeal. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions contained in the revision application as well as made by Shri Prabhu. A question similar to the question involved in this appeal came up for consideration before this Bench in the Appeal No. CD(T)(BOM)369/81 M/s. Vakil and Sons Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. Import Policy in that appeal was Import Policy AM 1979-80. The import policy applicable in the present appeal is import policy AM 1980-81. But then there is no difference between the two policies in regard to the import of spares by actual users. 8. During the heari....