1994 (5) TMI 82

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Customs, New Delhi. 2. The appellant had imported 4 fax machines and spares by 5 post parcels from Singapore. It was alleged in the show cause notice, dated 18-3-1991 that the goods had been imported without a valid import licence and that their value has been under-declared. The importer had filed a civil writ petition being No. 1769/91 in the Delhi High Court and the Hon`ble Delhi High Court directed the adjudicating authority to finalise the adjudication and pass the order, after giving a hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, within 4 weeks from the date of the receipt of their order. The Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi vide his Order-in-Original dated 28-8-1991 came to a finding that the goods imported ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orts and Exports and DGTD. It was also mentioned that similar goods have been cleared under the same licence. It was pleaded that a very heavy redemption fine and penalty has been imposed. Presently, the market is flooded with such machines; their goods are still with the Customs for the last 3 years and they have incurred heavy losses. 5. Shri A.K. Singhal, the learned JDR stated that the goods had been imported under forged documents. There were more than one invoice. In the original records, there were two invoices for the same goods. The party had promised to produce bank attested invoice but failed to do so. The invoice is FOB and it has not been explained as to how the remittance towards the freight/postal charges had been mad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not be looked into and the present case was distinguishable from the cases cited by the learned JDR in support of the arguments in reply advanced by him. 7. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case and have given our due thought and consideration to the submissions made by both the sides. 8. The appellants have imported 5 post parcels containing 4 fax machines, plastic tray, paper rolls etc., from Singapore. The import licence produced covered the import for "raw materials, components, consumable stores and packing materials in accordance with the provisions made in Para 106(1), Part C and Para 32(2) of Part B. Section 1 of Import Policy Book, Volume II for the period 1977-78 excluding all the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... questions on page 8 and 9 of his order. He himself has replied to these questions and has drawn adverse inference against the appellant. In the interest of justice, we consider that the matter needs further clarification by the appellant and further investigation by the adjudicating authority. 10. As regards the valuation, the value declared was Singapore Dollars 3400 FOB (Rs. 35,509 FOB and Rs. 43,437 CIF).The goods were imported from a stockist. No indent, correspondence, manufacturer`s invoice and printed price lists and other documents as required under the Customs Valuation Rules, were produced. The importer were asked to submit Bank signed invoice and GATT declaration, and the importer had undertaken to submit Bank attested i....