2000 (10) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the facts of the case and applied the case law erroneously. 2. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has read the serial II of sensitive item in the Handbook of Procedures, 1992-97, Vol. II in part and not as a whole. To illustrate the Commissioner (Appeals) has overlooked the preamble to the List II of Sensitive List, Handbook of Procedures, Vol. II which reads, "In respect of the following items licence shall be issued with value restrictions as indicated against each, both under quantity based licence and value based licences". The rider to the entry 1 of the side list reads "itemwise value limit as indicated in the relevant norms". Evidently the rider to the entry is o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e issued by the appropriate authority. In this regard it is submitted that the licencing authority has itself laid down that necessary checks have to be carried out by the Customs with regard to sensitive items. This is evident from the condition 4 of the condition sheet attached to the said licence duly signed by the licensing authority. Therefore, it is well within the jurisdiction of the Customs authorities to ensure that conditions required for the clearance of sensitive items are fulfilled. So the facts of this case are distinguishable from the case law of M/s. Shivshankar Tilkakraj v. Union of India and others, 1987 (28) E.L.T. 342 (Bom). The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly applied the case laws without appreciating the facts and c....