2003 (3) TMI 427

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gainst M/s. Philips India Ltd., Mumbai. Accordingly, he has confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 14,00,085/- against the appellant, confiscated the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and has also imposed personal penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on each of the two appellants. 2. Shri A.K Jayaraj, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that they had imported stock lot of various electronic components including ICs. They filed the Bill of Entry and declared the value of the goods based upon the invoices raised by the trader. However, Revenue entertained a belief that the value declared by the appellants was not correct and hence they conducted investigations. In the course....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ht to the notice of the adjudicating authority the contemporaneous imports of identical goods and produced the Bill of Entry. Same have not been accepted by the Commissioner on the ground that in case of two bills of entry, the supplier is the same and as such it cannot be considered to be contemporaneous. Third Bill of Entry has been rejected by him by observing that it is not clear as to whether the goods are of "Philips" make or not. The learned Advocate states that even in their case, the goods are not of 'philips' make. He strongly relies on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd v. CC, Mumbai, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) = 2000 (41) RLT 621 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in the normal cir....