1988 (2) TMI 305

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mining machinery components under Heading 84.06/84.23 of the Customs Tariff Act, preferential duty applied under Notification 179/80-Cus., dated 4.9.1980, and a bond executed under the terms of the notification for the exemption. This bond bound the importer to pay on demand the duty on those parts which are not proved to have been used for the purpose permitted by the notification. Eventually, the Assistant Collector can celled the bond on 12.1.1985. As the Collector of Customs took this action to be incorrect, he directed the Assistant Collector, in exercise of his powers under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 to apply to the Collector of Customs Appeals, Bombay for determination of certain points with respect to the clearances of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Singh, Collector of Customs, Bombay by virtue of the powers conferred on me under Section 129D(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, order the Asstt. Collector of Customs, S.I.I.B. New Custom House, Bombay to apply to the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay for determination of the validity of the order of release of the goods covered by Bill of Entry No. 757/783 dated 11.7.1984 S.S. Needlloyed Everest, dealt with in the said file on the following points: (i) Whether the order of release of goods in question i.e. Diesel Engines of CIF value of Rs. 1,96,945.00 under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 against main import licence No. P/D/1959334 dated 12.8.1983 and its subsidiary licence No. P/D/1959338 dated 12.8.1983 is in conformity with the p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atter for determination under Section 129D; determination of the correctness of cancellation of the bond on 10.1.1985 will produce a result as ludicrous as it would be unexpected. 7. I will proceed as if the Collector of Customs' assertion was correct that the goods were not covered under the terms of Notification 179/80-Cus. and that he would like to revive the bond wrongly cancelled by the Assistant Collector. The bond is revived and the Collector of Customs then seeks to enforce it. He will find to his surprise that the bond requires the importer to pay the duty because he had not been able to prove that the goods have been used for the purpose listed in the notification. But if the goods had been actually used for the declared purpos....