TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... At the outset, on an enquiry by us, the Id. advocate Shri Chinoy conceded that the order does not touch the rate of duty and hence, the refund of duty mentioned in Col. 8 of their appeal memorandum is not relevant. Their appeal is only against the order of confiscation and redemption fine imposed. 3. The brief facts for the purpose of disposal of the appeal are as below: The appellants being the DGTD unit, have obtained an approval for the Phase Manufacturing Programme for the aforesaid machine. In the first phase, the machine in CKD condition was allowed to be imported and they have got the list of the components constituting the machine in CKD condition duly attested by the DGTD and hence claimed the benefit of import under Appx. 10 S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms will allow clearance of such components under OGL or under flexibility provisions in accordance with the List Attestation Procedure laid down, if the import is otherwise in order and in conformity with the various provisions in the relevant import Policy." 5. He agreed that the items imported can be assembled to constitute the complete machinery and there is no dispute about it; but when they are permitted to import the components in CKD condition as per the Phase Manufacturing Programme and this has been duly attested by the DGTD, they have complied with the provisions of para 219(7) of the Policy and in such a case OGL benefit is admissible to them. He also pleaded that subsequent to the order of confiscation, he made a reference to t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r operation of the machine. All the same, when the same item is also attested by the DGTD, imposition of redemption fine is not called for. 6. Mrs. Lipika M. Roy Chowdhary, the Id. S.D.R. on the other hand contended that the clarification from the DGTD was not produced before the adjudicating authority. In any case, the clarification clearly refers to Sr. No. 99 of List 8 Part I of Appx. 6 of Import Policy 1984-85 and according to this, components (other than electronic components) are only covered by this serial number. Even the provisions of Chpt. 20 are not applicable in the case of import of electronic components and hence the list attestation procedure cannot be said to cover the import of electronic components viz. control panel, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase I Manufacturing Programme of the appellants. The sub-unit attested by the DGTD inter alia includes, control panel and pendant. These items are claimed for import against Phase Manufacturing Programme under the List Attestation Procedure as per the provisions of Chpt. 20. The list attestation procedure is available only in respect of components other than electronic components both for DGTD units and other units. This is clearly mentioned in para 219(9) of Chpt. 10 of the Import Policy AM 1983-84. When the control panel is operated on electric components and this sub-unit is also attested by DGTD, it is evident that they have gone beyond the purview of para 219(9) of the Policy AM 1983-84. However, in so far as the other components are c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the eligibility for import of items figuring in Sr. No. 99 of Appx. 6 List 8, which excludes electronic components. Hence, import of electronic components under the list attestation procedure, which is also specifically barred by virtue of para 219(9) of Policy AM 83-84 cannot be said to have been effected with due diligence and care. When DGTD is not the proper authority for attestation of the list in respect of the electronic components, which is clearly laid down in the Policy itself, the appellants cannot claim to have taken due diligence and care in taking recourse to the import of the electronic components under this list. This is not a case where a clarification is given in the matter where the competent authority can give the clari....