TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (1) TMI 263
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extruder and filed a bill of entry dated 12-1-1983. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 40/78-Cus. which exempts 'Plastic extruder above 150 mm screw diameter' from customs duty in excess of 25% ad valorem. The authorities below allowed the exemption but subsequently issued a demand alleging that they have not produced any literature in support of the claim. 3. Arguing for the appellants, ld. Advocate submits that this matter was initially examined by SIB and all technical details including literature was submitted to them and therefore, SIB being satisfied about the eligibility to exemption vide letter dated 22-6-1983 wrote to Asstt. Collector of Customs that the appellants were eligible to exemption. The goods were accor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi on 11-6-1983 intimated the original authority that the bill of entry were filed by Usha Rectifier on their behalf as per their letter of authority dated 10-4-1982. They also authorised Usha Rectifier Corpn. in terms of para 383 of Handbook of Import Export Procedures, 1982-83 to make payment, arrange shipment and clearance from Customs and to complete all the formalities in accordance with provisions of Import Control Order, 1965 on their behalf. 6. The relevant para 383 of Handbook of Import Export Procedures gives authority to Licence Holder to appoint a person as agent for arranging the imports permitted by the licence. The licence would continue in the name of licence holder. The relevant para is reproduced below for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. Advocate that the Letter of Authority was submitted to Customs alongwith Bill of Entry and it was against this Letter of Authority, even though the licence remained in the name of Passive Components Ltd. that they were allowed to clear the goods. We find considerable merit in the argument of the ld. Advocate that their liability ceased the moment the goods were cleared by the Customs and that duty could be demanded only from Passive Components Pvt. Ltd. From sub-section 3 of Section 147 of Customs Act, it is clear that even though the agent is deemed to be the owner of such goods, the short levy can be recovered from him only if, in the opinion of Asstt. Collector of Customs, the same cannot be recovered from the owner or importer or ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the stage of the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the respondent has stated that as the importer could not be served by post the demand is made as against the petitioners. Even assuming that the amount has not been factually collected from the importer or that the importer cannot be contacted by post, those circumstances will not be sufficient to attract the proviso to Section 147(3). The proviso seems to suggest that the liability of the importer can be passed on to his agent only if in the opinion of the Asstt. Collector of Customs the same cannot be recovered from the owner. The expression "cannot be recovered from the owner" would indicate that all steps for realisation of the differential duty should have been taken against ....