1990 (6) TMI 79

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....66 of the Customs Tariff Act of 1975 has failed to act in accordance with the provisions of Project Imports (Registration of Contract) Regulations, 1965 read with the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 committed an error by fixing the amount arbitrarily at a highly inflated figure of Rs. 81,710.94 even after realisation of proper Import Duty of Rs. 40,855.47P. for the imported consignment. 2. The petitioner alleges that against the order of adjudication passed by the respondent No. 2 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1 Collector of Customs (Appeals) and the respondent No. 1 who heard the petitioner's appeal on 16th of November, 1987 dismissed the same holding, inter alia, that tw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Import Regulations, 1965. 7. It is asserted that the request of the petitioner for extension of time for submission of such documents was duly granted and the petitioner was granted very opportunity for production of documents and submission of information and after giving a due notice the terms of the Bond were enforced upon the petitioner loading confirmation of demand for the bond amount of Rs. 80,901.92P. but since the petitioner has failed to comply with the same and relevent documents were not filed and the informations were not supplied, the impugned order was made in accordance with law. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Custom Authorities at length and after going through the impugned order ....